are concerned that you're weakening social security by diminishing contributions through the payroll tax, by extending this tax. >> well, the president put forward a plan to pay for this payroll tax cut extension and expansion. senate democrats put forward a way to pay for this payroll tax cut extension and expansion. the social security actuary had said that -- has said, and has said this to reassure those senators who might be concerned about the trust fund, that it has no impact on the trust fund. the trust fund is made whole through u.s. treasuries, which are the safest investment in the world, as you know. so the issue here is, as i said, it's not even any more about how you pay for it, as we saw last night in these votes, it's whether or not one party actually supports giving tax cuts to middle-class americans. paula. >> on december 16, congress has to act on appropriations being extended. and there is some talk of

possibly rolling it into one little holiday package -- the extenders, the u.i. benefits extension, as well as payroll tax cuts -- just do it all at once, christmas tree it. is that something that you think is feasible -- >> again, i think that's getting ahead of the process in terms of what the sausage-making might look like in these next several weeks. i think we're focused on a number of things, principally the payroll tax cut extension and expansion, but also these appropriations bills and getting all of the work that needs to be done by the end of the year done in a way that ensures that we're doing right by the american economy. >> and the president hasn't had a bipartisan congressional group come down here for quite some time. is that possibly one thing you could -- >> i would not dare to predict the future from here today.

yes. >> jay, the house republicans said today that they will attach a bill designed to speed approval of the keystone pipeline to boehner's bill about the tax cut extension. thats your reaction to bill, and how would the president react to it if they were connected? >> look, jeff, as you know, that this is a process that is being run out of the state department. the president has made clear what the criteria need to be in considering this project. but it is a process being run out of state, and the timeline is being decided by -- on the merits and on the issues by those who are reviewing it at the state department. so i'll refer you to them. >> the house bill would try to go around that entire process. >> well, we think that the establishment of the state department as the place where this review is housed has existed for years. it exists in a national security directive, and it even predates that by many decades.

so i think the precedent here is proper and that's why it's being reviewed at the state department. >> so if that were connected to a bill to extend the payroll tax cut, would the president reject it? >> that was an "if" -- an "if" that i'm not going to get into. but i think the proper place for this to be done is where it's been done in the past, so that it's done well and reviewed responsibly, and that the necessary criteria that need to go into a decision like this are all considered. april. >> jay, going back to julie's question about jobs, you said let's look at the numbers, and you said 8.6% unemployment rate is way too high. and in understanding that the black unemployment numbers have gone up again from 15.1 to 15.5, what do you -- >> way too high. way too high. we have to do everything we can, including extending unemployment insurance, including making sure that this tax cut for 160 million working americans gets into place.

and if we were being truly sensible -- "we" i say generously -- if congress were being truly sensible, they would pass all the elements of the american jobs act, which, as you know, is paid for entirely so it doesn't add a dime to our deficit. but if you did it all, it would have the kind of impact that outside economists said it would have, which is adding up to 2% growth to our gdp, adding many, many hundreds of thousands of jobs. this is what our economy needs. this is the medicine that our economy needs. and apparently, only in one section of capitol hill is there disagreement about this, because the support for this kind of approach is widespread in communities across america, in every region of the country, and from people who call themselves democrats, independents and republicans. that's why the president designed the american jobs act

in a way that it was filled with the kinds of provisions that both parties have supported in the past because he thought it was important to do that so that it has a real chance of getting the kind of support necessary to pass out of congress and be signed into law by him. >> you keep saying on these numbers they're way too high. what is the comfortable number that this administration has set for a normal, healthy unemployment rate in this country? >> well, i would let economists evaluate that and give you a number. i know that this president has said and is committed to not resting until he knows that every american who's looking for a job can get a job. >> but the reason why i say that -- because you said "way too high." so that's why i'm trying to quantify what would be -- >> again, i don't have a -- i think that we're not in any danger of reaching a point where the unemployment rate is satisfactorily low, which is why we need to do everything we can through congress, through the use of the president's executive authority, and working with our partners in the private

sector, as the president highlighted today with former president clinton, to put people back to work and to build the foundation of an economy that can grow into the future, which is what the better buildings initiative does. so this is a multifaceted attack on the number-one problem facing this country, which is the need to grow the economy and create jobs. julianna, and then bill. >> thanks. there are some reports out of the canadian press that next week when prime minister harper is here he and the president will announce a new cross-border security agreement. is that anything that you can confirm? >> i don't have anything beyond what i mentioned that they will discuss, security issues. i haven't read the canadian press yet today, so i wasn't aware of those reports. >> also, the treasury secretary is going to europe next week to meet with european finance officials. can you talk about what he hopes to get out of that trip and what influence he has -- he'll have there?

>> well, this is part of an ongoing engagement that secretary geithner has had -- well, really since he took office, but this year as we have offered our advice and counsel to the europeans as they deal with their debt crisis. secretary geithner, as you know, as treasury secretary and in his previous life, has a great deal of experience dealing with this kind of situation. so i'm sure he will consult with his counterparts as they try to grapple with this very serious matter and take continued steps, as they've taken some already, to try to get it under control in a conclusive and decisive way. so that's what the trip will be about. and it's part of an ongoing effort that he's made. >> is he going over there with any additional technical advice? butone that i'm aware of, our position on what we think

europe needs to do is very clear, and it's not -- it's shared by i think a lot of our european counterparts, which is that they need to establish a firewall that is sufficient to the task at hand. and there are a variety of ways you can do that, and we encourage the europeans to work towards getting that done in a conclusive and decisive way. >> house speaker john boehner says he is looking for common ground with president barack obama on improving the economy. the speaker and other house leaders urged the president to set aside differences and encouraged harry reid to vote on three gop jobs bill that recently passed the house. this is just under 10 minutes. >> good morning, everyone.

any job creation is welcome news, but the jobless rate in our country is still unacceptably high. today marks the 34th consecutive month of unemployment above 8%. as you may remember, the obama administration promised unemployment would not exceed 8% if we passed other stimulus bills. that promise has gone unfulfilled. more than 300,000 americans left the labour force last month. that means they stopped looking for work. the think we should be concerned about that. the house has passed a series of bills designed to remove government barriers to private sector job creation. there are 25 bipartisan bills that have passed the house that are waiting in the u.s. senate. it is part of our plan to help america's job creators.

frankly, if the u.s. senate would take up these bipartisan bills, they would find bipartisan support in the u.s. senate as well. president obama should use this opportunity to call on the senate to move these bills as passed by the house. american people want action on jobs. they want it now. >> good morning. today's unemployment numbers certainly look good on its surface, when the rate of unemployment comes down that is always good news. however, if you look at the number of new jobs created, there are not enough new jobs being created in america, and we need to work harder towards that to be up to provide people with it better opportunities. i know americans are looking for optimism around the holidays. we continue to try to stay focused on areas in which we can find common ground. we have looked at where we have been this session, and we have been able to find common ground

with the president when it came to the trade bill, when it came to 3% withholding. there is an ability to set aside differences and find common ground, and we look as house republicans to try to find those ways. there are plenty of areas where we disagree. we do not believe we should start there. we do not believe in higher taxes and we do not believe in more spending, but we want to work with this precedent in terms of finding common ground and see how we can create jobs. if we see our way clear on this bigger issues, let's look towards how would to make incremental progress day by day to help the lives of americans and create more jobs for families across this country. >> although we improved from last month, november still marks the 34th month where unemployment has been 8% or above.

as the speaker has alluded, although encouraging, when you realize 300,000 perhaps have just given up, it is even less encouraging. again, 34 months of 8% unemployment or more in the obama economy, 28 of the last 30 months we have had at 9% plus unemployment in the obama economy. the 13.5 million remain unemployed in the obama economy. small-business start-ups, business owners remains at a 17- year low in the obama economy. meanwhile, house republicans have passed three more jobs bills. we now have 23 stacked up like cordwood at the u.s. senate, awaiting action in the democratic senate. as our leader said, we will continue to try to work with our

president, senator reid, and the democrats. we did on the trade agreements, the 3% withholding, the american veterans act, but it is time for the president to admit after being able to enact all of the major tenets of his agenda, the health care plan, dodd-frank, the stimulus, ultimately his policies are not working. so we would ask mr. president, please tell senator reid to cast our jobs bills. >> the question is not really where are we today. the question is, where should we be? remember, the obama administration promised the american public that if the stimulus bill passed, that right now we would be under 6.5% unemployment. instead, we are over 8.5% unemployment. think about the remedies. think about the opportunity moving forward.

this has been mentioned, over 20 bills are pending, jobs bills pending in the u.s. senate. just imagine what things could be like if those were called up past -- called up, past, and signed into law. we would be moving forward, and we would not be having a conversation, stumbling around unemployment in the mid eights. >> mr. speaker, what is the house republican plan for paying for an extension of the payroll tax cuts and the extension of the unemployment benefits? >> we will have that conversation with our members as soon as we leave. we will know more about it soon. >> the message democrats are putting forth is republicans are against middle-class tax cuts and things for the middle class, and that republicans are only protecting the wealthy, how do you respond to that?

>> i have 11 brothers and sisters on every one of the economic ladder. my dad owned a bar. i know what is going on in america. republicans are trying to do everything we can to allow american families and small businesses to keep more of what they earn, to keep the government off the backs of small employers so they can hire people. the other side can come up with all the rhetoric that want to come with, but the facts are the facts. >> the action on both proposals, the payroll bill, particularly soundly defeated. does that make your job to work out something harder, different? >> who knows. them seriously, -- >> seriously, this is one of the key issues in the next three weeks. it did something. >> we will talk to the conference here in a few

minutes. i am sure you will have all kinds of answers to your question. >> the senate vote on alternatives, the extension of the payroll tax. the you expect to see that resistance? >> i would hope not. thanks. >> thank you. >> house democratic leader nancy pelosi says that congress cannot go home for christmas without passing unemployment insurance and payroll tax cut extensions. in a press conference on capitol hill, the minority leader and steny hoyer said this is crucial to boosting the economy this holiday season. this is just over 10 minutes. >> good afternoon.

last month, mr. hoyer, are distinguished diplomatic wehip, joined us in signing a letter to speaker bunner, asking him to pass the president's extension -- to speaker boehner's, asking him to sign the president's extension, asking him to extend the payroll tax cuts, and the extension of sgr. these are three emcor issues that economists tell us will build the economy in terms of unemployment, payroll tax, injecting into the economy to create jobs. last night, the republicans in the senate rejected the republican proposal, the majority republicans voting against the republican proposal in the sat at. -- in the senate. these are important initiatives.

independent, objective economists tell us, again, 400,000 jobs will be lost if we did not pass the president's bopayroll tax and other initiatives. these are very important because they expire on january 1, december 31. we cannot leave here without passing this. we have to stop playing with the american people and their economic security. we really do. it is a job that we know we have to do. we have to sit down and do it in a bipartisan way, as we did when president bush was president. christmas is coming, families are concerned. the deadline of december 31 as fast upon us. again, last month was sent a letter. last night, the republicans in

the senate rejected their own plan. that has to be a better way to get the job done. christmas is coming. the goose is getting fat. and the republicans refused, they want to keep in doubt whether the middle class will have a tax cut, hold that hostage to protect the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in this country. this is not right. >> coal in the stocking it ought not to be what we leave to the american people at the end of this year. we're going to have some 3 million people who are going to be without the ability to support themselves and their families if we did not pass the unemployment insurance, and do it in the next few days. an awful lot of people, working men and women, average salaried

people will find their salaries, their take-home pay reduced if we do not extend it and follow the president's recommendation, and both individuals and small businesses. i am hopeful that unlike what happened in the senate, where a majority of the u.s. senate voted to extend the payroll taxes, the republicans offered an alternative. as the leader has pointed out, they could not get a majority of their own party to support their recommendation. at least it did not recognize that we ought to extend the payroll tax. i am very hopeful that the republican leadership both in the house and senate will work with us to ensure that coal is not a gift from the u.s. congress and the stockings of the american people, that we

pass an extension of the tax cut and expand that tax cut which economists, as the leader has pointed out, will have a positive effect on jobs and growth in the economy. and pass the unemployment insurance as well so we do not have millions of people, millions of our fellow citizens without the ability to put food on their table in the coming year. thank you. >> it is important to note that although a majority voted to the senate for extending the payroll tax cuts, they only need 60 votes in the senate, and that majority did not make a successful passage of the votes of the passage to move the legislation along. then when they had their own plan, a majority of republicans voted against iran planned. what is it that the middle class did it to the republicans that they're taking it out on them so harshly and not passing

the payroll tax and saying we are protecting the tax cuts for the wealthy but we're not protecting, extending the tax cuts to the middle class? questions? >> the republicans say they want to auction off spectrum, ease the backbone regulations -- your reaction? >> i think this is ridiculous, taking a securities route to know where. if we have to pay for the payroll tax cut, and we're willing to do that, even the republicans never want to pay for the tax cuts the wealthiest people in our country, does that not strike you as stunning? the middle income tax that has to be paid for. the tax cuts for the wealthy, we don't pay for that. but in any event, we are willing to be fiscally sound in terms of the extension.

we are confident it will create jobs. and we can pay for the payroll tax cut and we can pay for the extension of sgr, which is a variable to the american seniors, but doing it with the republicans did in their budget, but taking the funds from the overseas contingencies operations account. bu>> do you have enough leverage to insist on this being part of the package, or are you focused -- >> time is of the essence. >> votes are the issue. the question is, do we have the votes? certainly, we saw in the u.s. senate a majority of the members, unfortunately, of the senate requires a supermajority to do anything, to put a bill on the floor require 60 votes. the american public does not understand that, i don't understand, frankly. i think it is a dysfunctional body that has a majority of the

representatives. as a matter of fact, well over majority of the american public are voting for the passage of that bill, and it still does not pass, notwithstanding 51. we will continue to advocate on behalf of working americans to make sure their tax cuts, and it was affected last year, it is extended and expand it so we can continue to grow the economy, and grow jobs, and create the 400,000 jobs economists think will result. >> it has been something that republicans have used in their budgeting. i think it is important, the economic security of american families, and use it for extending the payroll tax and removing all of the uncertainty in sgr. sgr is initials for something that means that seniors will be

able to see the doctor of their choice under medicare. is very important to our seniors. as a priority, this money, the account has over $1 trillion in april that it would not take half of it to cover what we're talking about. >> you feel that yesterday's vote was only a message about the millionaires' tax? it was not an appetite to expand the payroll tax cut? you think the saddest of appetite to expand? >> i don't know the answer to that question. at -- you think the senate still has an appetite to expand? >> i don't know the answer to that. i think the majority has indicated they have that appetite. whether we have 60 or not, i do not know. the person has said we have an economy that is struggling, although we had good news today. the unemployment rate went from 9% to 8.6%.

we had 140,000 private sector jobs. unfortunately, we continue to lose public sector jobs, about 20,000. we had a net accretion of 120,000 jobs. economists tell us if we do with the president suggests, we will expand the economy and grow jobs, and that is what the american people want us to do. >> this seems to be disarray in the republican conference about whether they will repeal the extension. it seems anything will need democratic support in the house. do you have the leverage and are you willing to negotiate anything in terms of spending cuts that you would ordinarily be opposed to? >> let me just say, i am not an expert on this array of the republican caucus, but i do know that the democrats but the heat on passing the payroll tax cut and that disarray may be the result of them feeling the heat. the american people know this is about fairness, it is urgent for

us to pass this, and, again, jobs are at stake and purchasing power of the middle-class during this holiday season, which is important to our economy, depends on this. we're always willing to talk about some offset when it comes to this, but with the winding down of the war in iraq and afghanistan, too, there are these resources. they will be used for something, and we are saying that we should -- they should be used as a priority to give a tax cut to the middle class and other issues that are of concern to the middle class. but we're always open to here with have to say. so far we have not heard anything that even sounds like a serious attempt at a bipartisan compromise. >> talk is cheap. when president bush said the

country is in trouble, democrats responded in a bipartisan way. when the republicans could not keep government running without our help, they got our help. the second time that could not keep it running without our help, we give them help. they could not make sure that america pay its debt, paid its bills. democrats helped. the answer to your question is, yes, democrats have shown, not just talked about, have shown we are prepared, as we did just recently, when the republicans could not pass the road appropriation bills -- republican appropriation bills that came out of their committee, with the support of their chairman of the appropriations committee. 101 of their folks voted against it. they needed 218. but historically, when speaker pelosi is putting legislation for the american public, too often we got zero support.

the answer to your question is an emphatic, yes, we are prepared to cooperate for the welfare of our country and our people. >> thank you very much. we cannot go home for christmas unless we pass this legislation. the clock is ticking. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, the c-span series "the contenders" on key figures that have run for president and lost the changed political history. tonight, the life of george mcgovern. after that, a house hearing on the proposed keystone pipeline. >> it is so convenient to listen to see spine and -- to c-span

anytime, anywhere, with streaming audio and all three c- span television networks, 24/7. also listen to our interview programs. c-span, available wherever you are. find out more at c-span.org >> live from mitchell, south dakota, the life of george mcgovern profiled in the c-span series "the contenders." >> in 1968, many americans thought they were voting to bring our sons home from vietnam. since then, 20,000 of our sons have come home in coffins. i have no secret plan. i have a public plan and it is one whose heart has ached for the last 10 years for the agony

of vietnam. i will halt the bombing of indochina on inaugural day. [applause] >> it was 1972, 2:30 in the morning when george mcgovern delivered his acceptance speech. a few months later, he would lose badly to president richard nixon. tonight, the candidacy and legacy of george mcgovern. we are live from the mcgovern museum in mitchell, south dakota. joining us is presidential author scott farris. it was 2:30 when he delivered the acceptance speech in miami. why? >> it was emblematic of the whole mcgovern campaign, which was it was an insurgent campaign run against the establishment. what happened was, as you heard from senator mcgovern, he was very strong on the issue of vietnam. one of the things about senator

mcgovern as one of the most influential who ran for the presidency who was not successful, he went after the vietnam issue. he did two things. he spoke about that war in ways no presidential candidate had ever spoken about war before. it was strong language that unsettled lots of americans and caused them to worry about how he would win the war. it was an insurgent campaign to end the war against the democrats. there was a lot of conflict there that eventually lead over to the convention. there were some floor fights. there were some issues with the california delegation. there were issues with who he would choose for his widespread initial running mate. the convention got out of hand. when it was time to discuss his

nomination, it was 2:30 in the morning. instead of speaking before 75 million americans during primetime, he only spoke to about 15 million americans in the middle of the night. he joked it was either insomniacs or people who fell asleep in front of the tv set. >> we are going to do a deep dive into the 1972 campaign and the convention. joining us here from our studios in washington is jules witcover, a veteran political reporter who covered the mcgovern campaign for the "los angeles times," featured prominently in the book "the boys on the bus" about the media coverage of that campaign. what is the atmosphere at the convention in 1972? >> exhaustion. >> exhaustion. [laughter] >> mcgovern gave the speech so late because fights continued to go on over various issues on the platform including the war in vietnam even though the platform had been adopted.

it actually played out the next morning when his staff met to choose a vice president or to decide who should be vice president. it was done in an unsettling way. i am sure we get to it in this discussion. it led to probably the most disastrous part of the mcgovern campaign, which was the selection of the vice- presidential nominee. >> in the convention hall that night, are the people with him? are they still there? it is 2:30 in the morning. >> the mcgovern followers at the convention had never been to a convention before.

as a result of new rules,the support was initiated by mcgovern himself on the commission. a lot of people there had never been to any convention and had not been involved much in politics. it was a great experience for them. at any convention, staying up until 2:00 in the morning is very unusual. -- is not unusual. what is not unusual is that he gave that very important speech so early in the morning. >> we will talk about the reforms that led to those people at the convention. let's go back to the mcgovern museum in mitchell, south dakota. what is happening in our country at this time that leads to the triumph of an anti-war candidate to win the nomination for the democratic party? >> the great political legacy of george mcgovern changed the complexion of the modern

democratic party. before the senator, the democrats had built the "new deal coalition," an amalgam of urban catholics, jews, and organized labor. by 1968-1972, because of divisions that were exposed by the division over vietnam, senator mcgovern was one of those in the democratic party who said the party needed to reform or else it would die. he saw the party was losing white populists to southern white republicans over civil rights. urban ethnics were moving to the suburbs. they saw the moving out to the suburbs and saw that organized labor was shrinking in influence and size. he looked over the political landscape and saw opportunities for growth by reaching out for minority groups that had been ignored by both parties. reaching out to hispanic- americans. reaching out to women.

reaching out to the youth vote. 1972, because of the 26th amendment, was the first time 18-year-olds could vote in the united states. he put together the "new politics coalition" to create his ruling democratic majority. coming out of the 1968 convention, he chaired a commission on reform, changing the delegate selection process heavily. he was very pro-active in bringing women and minorities into the party. the winners are also losers. other elements of the democratic party, particularly organized labor resented that their influence was going to diminish. it was a very wild ride because of the reforms mcgovern was able to put through the party. he had the advantage of an insurgent. he was the first anti- establishment candidate to win political favor. it caught the establishment off-guard. as his success built up, it caught a lot of attention with the democrats. it was a very tumultuous year

for the democratic party in 1972. the republicans were solidifying around richard nixon. probably the high point of the nixon presidency was 1972 when he went to china among other things. >> we will talk more about that as well later on. part of senator mcgovern's acceptance speech on that night in 1972 was about reforming the democratic party. he also takes aim at the republican party and what they are doing at their convention, which is being held shortly after the democrats, also in miami. take a look. >> we have had our fury and frustrations this past month and at this convention. frankly, i welcome the contrast with the empty events which will undoubtedly take place in miami next month. [applause] we chose this struggle.

we reformed our party. we let the people in. [applause] so we stand today, not as a collection of backroom strategists, not as a tool of i.t.t. or any other special interest. [applause] >> scott farris, george mcgovern in 1972 saying "we let the people in." take us back to the 1968 convention when hubert humphrey gets the nomination. draw a clear connection for our viewers between the 1968 convention and mcgovern winning in 1972. >> let's go back to 1967. this is when the anti-war movement is starting to pick up steam. it was very frustrating to president lyndon johnson. he continued to believe america could achieve a victory in

vietnam. the anti-war activists start shopping for an alternative to johnson, someone who could challenge johnson in the primary, which is really unprecedented. when you think about prior to 1968 when a party tried to challenge a sitting president was 1912 with former president, theodore roosevelt. even a former president could not knock off a sitting president for the nomination. that wanted to pressure it johnson to d.s. gill late pressure in vietnam. they searched for a number of people. they approached senator mcgovern and he declined. senator mccarthy of minnesota decided to run as an anti-war candidate. when he entered the new hampshire primary in 1968, he had a very strong showing against president johnson. he did not win, but he got

enough votes that it made johnson aware he would have a tough time getting the renomination. senator robert kennedy, president kennedy's brother, also entered the presidential contest. at that point, vice president humphrey still supported the war policies of vice president johnson. senator kennedy, of course, was assassinated in june. that left only senator mccarthy to be the insurgent candidate. senator kennedy's followers expected mcgovern to enter as a token candidate at the end. mcgovern did run a token presidency. ultimately, the nomination went to hubert humphrey, which infuriated the anti-war movement. not only did he not want a single primary, he did not enter a single primary. the democratic party was still being run by the big city political bosses, by the political machine.

they wanted to have the process more open, to have underrepresented constituencies -- like minorities, like the young -- brought into the process. they wanted the process opened up so it was not secret caucuses in people's homes, but where anybody could participate. the disillusion with hubert humphrey who was selected in 1968 put pressure on the democratic party to reform. in trying to appease the insurgents, humphrey suggested reforms to the party. but with the background. it was the humphrey nomination that outraged the reformers and caused them to demand fundamental change. >> what is the mood like at the 1968 convention? what is happening in the hall and outside?

>> it was a much more tumultuous convention than the 1972 convention because the party itself was so divided over the war and personalities. that is the year in which there were riots in the streets of chicago. the police department repressed them to the point that it was called a police riot. there was a big fight that the antiwar forces lost that generated tremendous heat. it continued through the convention. even after the nomination of humphrey -- i remember i was there. humphrey was a very sad figure at his own celebratory moment. he knew he was going out on the floor of the convention.

there was such criticism of him over the continuation of the war. that was my experience of the most destructive, but also the most exciting convention in my time. >> compare how humphrey was chosen at the nominee in 1968 to four years later the way mcgovern is chosen. >> a lot of it had to do with the floor rules. -- the reform rules. in 1968, they were selected as they had been for years by appointment, party bosses, or governors. if you were a party official, you got a free ticket to the 1968 convention by nature of your influence or as an officeholder. in 1972, those people who wanted to go to the convention

had to run as delegates, supporting one of the primary candidates. a lot of them picked the wrong horse because some supported ed muskie, the establishment candidate, and he had all of those officeholders pulling for him. when his campaign disintegrated, he left out of the convention hall. so many new people had never been to a convention. they filled the seats of the high and mighty who went to the convention in 1968. >> jules witcover, covering the 1968 and 1972 conventions for the "los angeles times." we are uncovering george mcgovern, our 13th contender in our 14-week series. back at the mcgovern museum is scott farris, presidential author. he wrote about roosevelt's

campaign in 1972. they will take your questions and comments. we will get your phone calls in a little bit. eastern-central time, call 202- 737-0001. mountain-pacific time, call 202-737-0002. scott farris, let me go back to the reforms headed up by george mcgovern. how did he get involved in the mcgovern-frazier convention. >> despite all the chaos, humphrey closed the gap on nixon in 1968. it was a very close campaign. a lot of regulars said they had come very close in 1968. without the agitation, we would have been fine. the insurgents said this was the last gasp of a dying political machine. humphrey was trying to unite the party. he decided to throw a bone to the insurgents by appointing a

commission on delegate selection reform. they needed to look for several qualifications. one, did they have credibility with the insurgents? they also wanted somebody who was loyal to the party, who would make it worth it for the regulars. mcgovern, unlike mccarthy, had also been concerned -- mcgovern had actually campaigned for humphrey. he never broke from the party. the third thing they were looking for is they were worried that the people would look at this as a way to manipulate the process to ensure the nomination. everyone was so sure george mcgovern would not be a viable candidate in 1972, he seemed like an obvious choice. he could not manipulate the system because his candidacy was a long-shot. he was appointed to the commission to be the chair. there were about two dozen members. people say how were they able to push these reforms through? the people who would most likely be opposed to reform,

particularly organized labor, were cut out of the process. the commission was dominated by those who intended to open up the process while the old regulars did not think it was worth bothering with, they did not think anything would come of it. >> what were the actual reforms? what did they say? >> the most sifnificant thing -- they encouraged most states to use primaries instead of caucuses. if you did have a caucus, you were required to make it open and well-publicized and publicly available. a lot of times previously if you were a party official, you automatically have a chance to be a delegate. a lot of time those party delegates would name others. they would pick whomever they wanted to take. sometimes the decision was made a year before the convention.

they tried to open up the process to make it more voter- responsive. they also tried to do away with the winner-take-all format of primaries and the tip proportional to give insurgent candidates a better chance to build teams and overtake an establishment candidate. most controversially, i suppose, is they decided on a passive approach of no discrimination against anybody who would like to be a delegate. they adopted a very proactive -- delegations had to reflect the makeup of the state's party by gender, ethnicity, race, age. it tried to get more women, minorities, and youth into the process. the party was striving for reasonable representation of those groups. after mcgovern left and a different chair took over, the commission adopted a significant quota that the representation should be equal to the state's population.

that was the basic gist of reforms by the commission. >> do the reforms stick today? >> they very much do. they were derided by conservatives and republicans as a quota system -- democrats were adding this quota as an affirmative action program. alternately, both parties have adopted these reforms. primaries are now referred to as caucuses and they are widely publicized. even though the republicans have been less successful in reaching out to minority voters, if you go to a republican convention, 50% of the delegates are going to be female. that was a radical idea back in 1968. let me give you a couple of quick numbers to give you a sense of how things changed. in 1968, only 20% of the

democratic delegates were women. in 1972, 40% were women. in 1972, 12%-13% were african- americans. there was a change in what the party looks like and it was very dramatic. >> scott farris, the impact today -- is there a long-term impact? we are heading into the 2012 presidential election with the iowa caucus coming up soon. >> reforms help non- establishment candidates get a foothold. if you have good ground and a lot of dedicated volunteers will show up at the caucuses and primaries, you can overcome the disadvantages. as republicans have followed suit, i believe this is the first year that republicans will have no winner-take-all primaries.

if an insurgent candidate, newt gingrich is filling the role of the insurgent candidate this year. the establishment candidate is mitt romney. the irony is newt gingrich is benefiting from reforms first initiated by george mcgovern back in 1972. these reforms have broadened participation. they have stayed with us in both parties, much as the democrats. >> gary hart was george mcgovern's 1972 campaign manager. here is what he had to say about the democratic primary reform efforts. >> i think history will show that he helped save the democratic party simply by chairing the mcgovern reform commission, by his insistence on the democratic party truly becoming a democratic party. because of his efforts and the efforts of many of you, the convention of 1972, as

interesting as it was, helped save the democratic party and helped open the doors for young people, women, minorities, and people who had, up to that time, been shut out. it is fashionable for people to say there is not much difference between the parties, but there really is. there is a necessity for a democratic party and the kind of democratic party george mcgovern envisioned and helped create. >> what is your reaction, jules witcover? to seeing gary hart talk about the reforms? >> mcgovern's role was a critical role. i go back to before 1968. i can remember in 1960 when john kennedy was running. he, his aide, and speech writer

would get on an airplane, fly around, and visit governors and mayors who were so empowered that you could pick up the nomination that way. not with the people, but with the officials and politicians. >> jules witcover, what was it like to see these new faces in 1972 and going forward at the conventions? >> it was very exciting. these people were into it more than some of the ones who had been to 20-30 conventions over their lifetime. they have their hands on the leaders and a new was born to happen. there was a level of uncertainty that was injected by these new people, not only in voting for the nominee but the platform committee hearings that

preceded the actual selection of the provincial nominee. >> scott farris, let me ask you about the short-term impact of these reforms. real briefly, if we could, in 1972, the reforms that he puts in place -- do they actually benefit him when it comes to voter turnout to beat richard nixon? >> it helped him get the nomination. he understood the new process because he chaired the reform. i do not think he tried to manipulate it to his benefit, he tried to be open and fair about it. he understood that something had fundamentally changed in the process and he was able to take advantage of that in terms of winning the nomination. some of the others were playing with the older rules. they were caught off guard.

his constituency still had not matured. senator mcgovern only got 37.5% of the popular vote in the election. democrats had not yet won over women. they had not gotten the youth vote the way they have today. if you look at today's democratic party, it has had a lasting impact. if you look at the coalition that mcgovern put together in 1972, highly educated voters. that is the coalition that gave barack obama the presidency in 2008. this is the barry goldwater candidacy that led to the ronald reagan presidency in 1980. you can give george mcgovern quite a bit of credit for the barack obama presidency in 2008. it took a little bit longer for that constituency to meld. the constituency just wasn't ready in 1972. >> tonight's "contenders," george mcgovern, the congressman and senator from south dakota, and the democratic

nominee party president in 1972. our viewers involved. our first call is from mike in new york. >> mcgovern became the head of the middle east policy council after deciding not to run for president again in 1992. he submitted a proposal for president clinton calling on the united states to protect access to middle east oil. did president clinton accept the proposal? if so, what happened as it affects others? >> a pretty specific question. >> scott farris and jules witcover all are here shaking their heads. i do not know if they know how to answer that question right. scott farris, his legacy? >> he certainly was very interested in middle east affairs. he met with president arafat. he was always interested in

helping with the peace agreements. president clinton did not accept that early on. of course, persident clinton at the end of his presidency made a herculean effort to try to make that happen. he got a lot of grief for saying certain phrases. mcgovern was a very strong supporter of israel, but was very outspoken on palestinian rights. >> we will be speaking more about mcgovern's post-72 convention life, his legacy, and efforts across the world, specifically on hunger. first, let's hear from gordon in illinois. >> i was a college student and voted for mcgovern as a 20- year- inold. later on, hearing the things of the nixon groups and their dirty tricks, i saw a program where someone claimed that they chose mcgovern as the weakest link for their dirty tricks, and made it easier to predict for mcgovern to get the nomination. have you ever studied it that?

>> jules witcover, do you want to weigh in on that? >> in the 1972 campaign, there were a lot of dirty tricks aimed at muskie. he was the front-runner at the time. it was not so much setting it up for mcgovern because he was such a long-shot that it would have been really requiring clairvoyance on the part of people to set a policy. it was more that they wanted to get rid of muskie. they thought he was the toughest candidate. they did a number of things, including spreading word in new hampshire, which had a very heavy french-canadian population, that he used certain words slurring the french-canadians.

they had another situation where a number of black voters called, urging people to vote for muskie, assuming that would backfire. there would be a backlash against muskie. these things all came out, but they really were not the reason ed muskie did not get the nomination. muskie's own campaigns had problems that were just as troublesome to him as were mcgovern's. >> we will talk more about ed muskie coming up. primary of 1971 but first, we need to talk about why george mcgovern would run in the first place. scott farris, what makes him decide to run for the presidency in 1972?

>> it goes back to 1968 when he filled in for bobby kennedy and was the standard bearer for his deligates because they wanted him to be a stand-in for kennedy. he participated in a debate between humphrey and gene mccarthy. everyone thought mcgovern had won that debate. it was that moment that he realized he had presidential aspirations because he had gone on a national stage between two of the leading democrats in the country. held his own. he began considering a run at that point and decided fairly early in 1969 that he would be a candidate. he felt he was the right person to bring together these old irregulars and the new insurgents and create a democratic majority. also, he personally despised richard nixon. mcgovern rejected the construct of the cold war. he ran against a well-known

anti- communist in south dakota. he had always despised him for how he had run against adlai stevenson in 1952 and 1956. he relished the fight and it was a great incentive for him to run. >> in vietnam -- what is happening between 1968-1972 on that issue? >> nixon said in 1968 he had a secret plan to end the war in vietnam. he ended up escalating the war in 1969 and 1970 by having u.s. troops invade cambodia and trying to disrupt supply lines. rth vietnam. early in the nixon presidency, the war seemed to be expanding, not winding down. this outraged the anti-war movement and gave mcgovern more emphasis to run against nixon. later, as it came closer to the election, nixon understood he needed to start disengaging

american troops so that by 1972, there were only a couple hundred thousand combat troops in vietnam. as mcgovern was making the decision to run, he thought nixon was escalating the war, not winding it down. >> 1971, the pentagon papers are first published. what is the impact of this? >> the pentagon papers were not as revealing as they were said to be. a lot of things in the pentagon papers were known. it gave more credibility to what was at the time nixon's public -- mixed public feeling failing again to protest the vietnam war. the impression now is that the country was totally in uproar against the war in vietnam in the late 1960's. it really was not. it was split. >> you have the 1970 anti-war protests, the kent state

shootings, those kinds of things. >> these are things nixon very effectively played on. there were just as many people who deplored the mess in the streets, the pictures of these wild-looking young people with their long hair, strange clothes. they offended mainstream america. the war was particularly effective with dealing with the democratic situation. it was a rallying point for voters and activists. nixon also made great use of the war by making slanderous remarks against people who

demonstrated. he ran in 1968 and again in 1972 on a law-and-order agenda. he was going to protect the american people from these rallies who were starting fires and having rallies in the streets. that is why it is painted now that the vietnam war really built the protest. it did do that, but it also solidified opposition to the war to the advantage of richard nixon. >> scott farris, all of this and the impact of the war on mcgovern -- what did it do? >> it caused him to lose perspective a little bit, to be honest. he thought the war was a

terrible mistake. he made several trips to vietnam and saw soldiers who had lost limbs and been crippled for life. he spoke again about the war in terms that were very strong, harsh, and uncompromising. he gave a speech before the u.s. senate in 1970 and said "this chamber reeks of blood." when you use that language, it will energize the anti-war folks, but it surprises a lot of -- disquiets a lot of voters who thought that he would withdraw american without any honor and maybe not worry about what would happen to the prisoners of war there. he was so passionate about war, he used language to describe it. he also wanted to give the american people the sense that they have ownership of this war. they were partly culpable. this was a problem with american society that they could not see what america was doing wrong in vietnam. politically, ultimately, i think it hurt him, certainly in

the general election because americans really do not want to hear the country and the military spoken about in that way. it gave the democrat's image of being "anti military" is one they have tried to shake for several decades. >> was this is motivation for running for president? >> his desire to win the war was the most important thing for him. when he did lose he said, "i feel so strongly about this war that we brought peace that much closer, this campaign was worth it." he felt very passionately that this was the wrong war. what was ironic, he was a war hero himself. he served as a bomber pilot in world war ii. he was not a pacifist. he thought vietnam was a mistake. he thought it was an anti- colonial war. he thought the u.s. had misunderstood it as a war of communist expansion. he did not think that was

true. >> we want to talk about the early life of george mcgovern before we talk about the 1972 campaign. the mcgovern campaign hired a documentary filmmaker, charles guggenheim, to create a series of short films about the candidate. as we turn to tell the story about young george mcgovern, here is a brief look at the guggenheim film. >> he was christened george stanley mcgovern. birthplace, avon, south dakota. he grew up in mitchell and went to school there. but the most important lessons were learned at home. from his mother, a gentle spirit. from his father, christian principles and hard work. his father had spent his boyhood in the illinois coal country where 14 hour days were measured out at 10 cents a bucket. but he found time to read scripture and decided to abandon the mines for politics. -- the pulpit.

in 1899, he was ordained a minister. reverend mcgovern built his last church in mitchell when george was five. as a boy, george had his father's love of history, but he would not be spared the troubles of his own time. the memory would live with them -- him his whole life. >> we are at the mcgovern museum. scott farris, tell us about george mcgovern. what through his life, starting early on, influenced him? defines him? >> it is important to remember his father was a minister in the wesleyan methodist denomination. demonimation.t sense o

it prohibited drinking, dancing, and going to movies. what george mcgovern got from his father was a strong sense of what is right and what is wrong to the point that he is often accused of not being moral, but moralistic. he got that from his father. he got the notion of right and wrong and the notion of doing good. he wrote a lot about the social gospel -- how to apply christianity to social affairs. feeding the hungry, etc. he was a shy child, which would later influence him. he perhaps even had a learning disability and was slow. when a couple of teachers realized he was very shy, they forced him to read aloud in class when he was in high school. he had a history teacher and debate coach. they encouraged mcgovern to be a debater. he was exceptional as a debater.

he won a number of debates and won a scholarship to go to wesleyan. he and his team won some national competitions. that early childhood formed him in terms of becoming a public figure. he cared a lot -- he was a good communicator, a good speaker, made good arguments, but also cared a lot about principles and public policy. >> world war ii. >> he had another teacher in world war ii. he had a gym teacher that told mcgovern to jump over a vaulting horse. mcgovern could not bring himself to do it. the teacher said he was a physical coward. that really stung mcgovern. he thought about it for a number of years. at dakota wesleyan, a classmate said he would like him to take flying lessons. mcgovern said he was afraid to fly, but he remembered what the gym teacher had said years before and decided to take private lessons. -- pilot lessons.

he became a pilot. when japan bombed pearl harbor, mcgovern and his friends drove down to omaha and enlisted in the army air corps. he became a pilot of b-24 bombers. he was stationed in italy. he flew 35 combat missions, which is what you were required to fly before you could go home. he was a skilled pilot. he was admired by his crew of 10. the b-24 was a hard plane to fly. he had emergency landings that were very risky, but every time he brought he and his crew home safely. for that he won the distinguished flying cross and was a war hero. later in life, after he developed a friendship with historian stephen ambrose, ambrose wrote "wild blue" which highlighted the air war during war ii. >> how does his early political career define his provincial -- presidential candidacy?

>> he initially had thought he would be a teacher. he initially thought he would be a minister. when he came back from the war, he entered the seminary to follow in his father's footsteps. he discovered the only thing he liked about the ministry was giving sermons. he thought everything else was not up his alley. he switched to history and got a doctorate degree in history. he is only one of two men who had a ph.d. nominated for president. he had a background in eastern europe that led him to believe the cold war concept was all wrong. the soviet union was not attempting world domination. it was simply protecting the traditional fear of influence. he was born to be a professor, but he was also very interested in politics. he got active in the 1952 stevenson campaign in south dakota. he started writing letters to the editor.

he caught the eye of state democrats who asked if he would be interested in becoming the executive secretary of the south dakota democratic party. the democrats in south dakota at that point were in bad shape. there were 110 legislators in south dakota in 1953 -- two were democrats. it was quite a challenge. mcgovern thought it was a challenge worth taking. he slowly built up the democratic party. he recruited party workers, candidates, raised money, wrote speeches. the democrats got 24 seats in 1954. in 1956, mcgovern took the party he helped build up and ran for congress. he won again in 1958 when he defeated a former south dakota governor. in 1960, he made his first bid for the united states senate. he lost to a longtime senator from south dakota. john kennedy felt that perhaps his candidacy had brought

mcgovern down, so he offered mcgovern a position to run a program in the kennedy administration. >> we are talking about george mcgovern's legacy, his candidacy. we are going to delve into the primary run he made in 1971. before we do that, let's go to akron, ohio. go ahead. >> thank you, and good evening c-span. thank-you for this wonderful series. i only hope some day you will do one about the cabinet. anyway, my comment and my question is i heard somewhere -- i do not know what the truth is behind this -- but moments before senator robert f. kennedy was assassinated in 1968 after winning the california primary, senator mcgovern was actually participating in a phone conversation with senator kennedy. i wondered if it has been

revealed what the conversation was about and if you know anything about that phone conversation? >> jules witcover? >> i have never heard that. i was in the hotel kitchen at the time robert kennedy was assassinated. i spent a great deal of time since then exploring all of the details of the time leading up to robert kennedy's death. i have never run across that story. i do know that in his hotel room, he made a call to a number of people to look over to the -- forward to the next phase of the campaign. he was going to new york to campaign for delegates there. he did talk to many people. he may well have talked to

senator mcgovern as well. there was a primary in south dakota the same night. i have not heard he actually talked to him, but it is possible. >> mike in california, thanks for joining us. >> hello. just a few things i want to throw out. anthony lucas in "nightmare" said dirty tricks were -- central to the narrative of the campaign. i think nixon ran a backlash campaign rather than a law-and- order. unfortunately, the only state mcgovern carried was massachusetts. i am from there. at the time we probably -- proudly festooned our cars with bumper stickers saying "do not blame me, i am from massachusetts." that is all i have to say. >> george mcgovern always

resented the implication that he won the nomination because richard nixon became involved with the dirty tricks against muskie. mcgovern said he always thought ed muskie was a weak front runner. he did not have the fire in the belly. he clearly did not understand that the rules had changed because of the reform commission. the notion that muskie lost the nomination simply because of nixon's dirty tricks, senator mcgovern always thought that was bunk. the nixon campaign was always doing little things. they had plenty of stories. they would find that the buses had been canceled before rallies and they could not get people to and from. they would see somebody at a mcgovern rally holding up the hammer and sickle flag of the soviet union flag. they always assumed that was a nixon plant.

there were dirty tricks involved, but he did not believe that was why he won the nomination. >> john in virginia. >> i read "wild blue" and only then learned about mcgovern's war record. i remember the 1972 campaign. it was the first time i could vote. but i do not recall mcgovern ever mentioning his war record. i think it would have given his anti-war stance more credibility if he had. can you comment on that? >> before our guests comment on that, i want to show what george mcgovern had to say about his experience as a world war ii bomber pilot. c-span sat down with him recently in his office in mitchell, south dakota. he is in his own words and then we'll come back and talk

about it. >> i flew 35 missions in a b-24 bomber, which was the biggest one we had at that time. it was before the b-52. we were hitting the most heavily defended targets in europe. they shot us to pieces on some of those missions. i wanted to bail out and i wanted my crew to bail out, but i have a little scotch blood and i knew the planes cost about $300,000. that is nothing by today's standards. we have a b-1 that costs $1 billion, but it was a lot of money then. i started bringing those planes back to home base. for that, i got a distinguished flying cross. >> there it is at the mcgovern museum. we are live for our contenders series on george mcgovern.

how does a war hero become an anti-war presidential candidate? why did he not talk about his military service? >> it was the subject of a lot of debate about how much he should emphasize his war record. he did mention it from time to time. he never just completely ignored it, but he was specifically encouraged by his staff to exclude it from his nomination acceptance speech. the rationale was that they could not be antiwar and discuss his war record. it would have been to his benefit if he had talked about it a little bit more because people got the mistaken idea that he was a pacifist who did not believe in using the armed services for any purpose. he endorsed the use of force in kosovo. he was not a pacifist, but it was a decision they felt he should not mention being an anti-war candidate. >> was his war hero status talked about?

>> he had a duty to the campaign. he had a slogan when he wound up his speeches late in the campaign about leaving war behind and coming home. another one of his slogans was "come home america." it is in the context of that that there were no references to -- some references to his wartime experience. >> before we talk a little bit more about george mcgovern's primary run, let's take this phone call from massachusetts. air. you are on the >> i recall watching senator mcgovern and robert woodbridge at the time of president ford's funeral. they were interviewing george mcgovern. talking about his friendship

with president ford. he said in the end he had voted for ford in 1976. he said he discussed it with his family afterwards and found they had done that as well. i about fell off my chair because i am a strong democrat. i wonder if that has come into the midst of information about senator mcgovern -- ever? >> scott farris? >> he did have great affection for gerald ford. i do not know that he actually voted for him, but he had problems with carter. a couple of reasons. president carter had not been very supportive of him in 1972 even though president carter basically borrowed the mcgovern strategy to get his nomination in 1976. he was also a little hurt that the magnitude of senator mcgovern's loss was he was a bit of a pariah in democratic circles. he was not given a starring role in the next convention.

i am sure there were some hurt feelings. he worked with a number of republicans. he and bob dole partnered for almost an entire lifetime on the issue of ending hunger in the world. he was capable of working across the aisle. he was not an ideologue who never worked in a bipartisan manner. >> george mcgovern, the world war ii hero, the congressman from south dakota, the senator from there decides to make a run for the presidency. having decided to run, mcgovern announces his candidacy from sioux falls, south dakota on january 18, 1971. here is a piece of the campaign film put together by charles guggenheim on mcgovern's decision to make that presidential run. >> this country was conceived by men who had a dream of human dignity and justice and concern for each other. if we begin now to match our policies with our ideas, then i believe it is yet possible that

we will come to admire this country, not simply because we were born here, but because of the kind of great and good land that you and i want it to be and that, together, we have made. that is my hope. that is my reason for seeking the presidency of the united states. [applause] >> jules witcover, what are mcgovern's chances heading into the primary in 1971? >> considered very slim. he was not a really dynamic personality. he was a very calm man. very soft-spoken. he lacked fire except when he talked about the war in vietnam.

>> was he considered dull? >> some considered him dull. his niceness was sometimes ridiculed, but it was genuine. when he ran in the first primaries, he was regarded basically as a weak replacement for robert kennedy because robert kennedy was so dynamic as a candidate. it was also because there is a certain uncertainty to be the nominee at that time. humphrey had been very impressive as the nominee in 1968. he was also a rather soft- spoken man most of the time, but he had a terrible temper that sometimes came through. that seldom happened with george mcgovern. >> who else was running and how

do they compare to george mcgovern? >> fred harris of oklahoma. >> they were all bunched up together. it was muskie's nomination to lose. some of the things that happened in new hampshire, including appearing to cry in a serious -- furious moment outside the local newspapers for things that had been printed about his wife. there was some dispute about whether he was actually crying or not. it was snowing at the time and muskie, himself, said he was not crying. that was the impression, nevertheless. the only reason his candidacy

collapsed in new hampshire was because of his position on vietnam. he could not make up his mind where he stood on vietnam. mcgovern left no doubt where he stood on the war. another point, mcgovern was genuinely against the war, but he was belittled in those days. although he was revered by the people who were against the war in vietnam, there were other people who did not see it that way. they would not dream of voting for george mcgovern. >> charles guggenheim filmed part of the campaign, including the senators speaking to a group of vietnam war veterans at a hospital. here is a little bit of that

conversation. >> they love their country, there is no question about that. you are about halfway mad at it, are you not? >> when you lose control of your bowels, your bladder, your sterility where you cannot father a child, you'll never walk again for the rest of your life, you are 23-years old, you do not want to be a burden for your family -- do you know where you go from here? a nursing home. and you stay there until you die. -- until you rot. nobody thinks of a disabled veteran or a disabled anybody except another disabled person. if you fall out of your wheelchair, do you know who is the first person to come to be some help? a guy in a wheelchair, not somebody who is walking. >> one of the unconscionable attacks of this day is what you -- facts of this day is what you just said -- people who

are desperately in need of help cannot qualify for it under the present system. i love the united states, but i love it enough that i wantthe ao believe in the government and their country. i want to provide the kind of leadership that would help restore that kind of faith. i do not think i can do it alone. of course i cannot. but the president can help set a new tone in this country. he can help raise the hope of the american people. that is what i am trying to do. >> scott farris, the impact of george mcgovern's tone in that campaign film and the impact on his primary run. >> how often do you hear politicians talking that

candidly about the price of war? very seldomly, if ever. one person said, let me tell you why george lost the election. america is a great country. it has faults, but george acted like he was angry at the country. you cannot talk about the nation's faults and expected to be elected. that shocked mcgovern. george thought that was not true. he thought that patriotism was pointing out the country's false and trying to improve them. many people interpreted it as him tearing down the united states by talking so graphically about the cost of war, our conduct their, and even why we were there in the first place. >> so, how does george mcgovern overcome this and then win the

nomination? >> again, he was a bit of a political savant. he was an organizational genius. he understood what it would take to win. we talk about what a good guy he was, and that is true. we should not overlook the fact that he was intensely ambitious as well. he tells the story of himself sometimes. a friend said to him, george, you are the most lauded, self effacing egomaniac i know. and that was true. he had what it tuck in terms of becoming president by putting in the long hours. gary hart's campaign manager said that muskie would go for the jugular if that is what it took. he had a concept of how to win that involved all of these insurgents who would organize, flood the early caucus states

and story of get him out of these places he was polling at only 1% or 2% and organize. he pulled off a very strong second place showing in the iowa caucus, a very strong second place showing in new hampshire. it showed that muskie was vulnerable. it caused hubert humphrey to get into the race. he nearly won ohio. we will talk about california a little bit more. he had better organization. he worked harder and he had the devotion of the anti-war insurgents that nobody else really had. >> jules witcover, what was the media making of this grassroots strategy at the time? were you paying attention to it? >> we were paying more attention to muskie, because muskie was supposed to be the winner. his staff made a terrible mistake in new hampshire.

one of his leading campaign people predicted that -- she said, if ed muskie does not win 50% of the vote, i will eat my hat. he won 46% of the vote, but against that prediction, mcgovern was essentially the winner of the new hampshire primary and muskie did not recover from that. if muskie had not stumbled -- mcgovern knowing the game, which he invented, the delegate selection rules, probably would have won anyway, but the fact that muskie had this string of mistakes and bad luck certainly provided the opening for mcgovern. >> and george wallace? the role of him in this primary? >> well, wallace was a spoiler. he tried to be a spoiler.

he got past muskie in florida. wallace won the florida primary and muskie finished fourth. that was kind of the last nail in muskie's coffin and another thing that opened up the way for mcgovern. >> so, muskie stumbled, but did mcgovern make any mistakes in this primary? >> he would later. he got a little complacent, oddly enough. he came from 100-1 odds to win the nomination, but he stumbled badly in california. he came into california riding all of these sudden victories. it came down to him and hubert humphrey. it came down to the california primary. george mcgovern got a lot of good press early on because he was the underdog.

but he lost in california. everyone assumed he was going to win in a blowout, but it turned out to be very close. it nearly derailed his nomination. >>we are going to get into that a little bit more, but i want to first talk about dirty tricks. a couple of callers have brougtht that up. what were some of the dirty tricks happening in the campaign? >> most of them are in new hampshire. we have already talked about the thing that was done to muskie, but throughout the campaign, dirty tricks were integral to nixon's strategy because that is the way they did business.

the whole watergate break-in was a manifestation of their desire not only to win, but to destroy the whole campaign, which was really personified by nixon himself. it was to decimate the opposition, not to take chances. it led to the exits we saw soon after the watergate break-in. >> where does the tag line of amnesty after an abortion come from? explain what it is and where it comes from. >> remarkably, it came from his future running mate, at least according to bob novak in his posthumous memoirs. they were purblished just a little while ago. eagleton allegedly said he

could not possibly have a chance because he favors amnesty, abortion and marijuana. that was later changed to acid just for added value. that was a little unfair. he did not support legalization of marijuana. he would go to college campuses and say, you have heard in the candidate who is supposed to legalize pot. the college campuses would go wild, and he would say, that is not true. the crowds would sit on their hands. he did not favor amnesty for deserters. he did favor for conscientious objectors. and for some of those who avoided the draft in other ways. as for abortion, he believed abortion should remain a decision made at the state level, not the federal level. had he been asked about roe v wade, he would have opposed the basic construct, because it was a federal matter. people were trying to put a

peacenik, hippie image on him. >> the line about amnesty, abortion and marijuana was a dirty trick, but it is so common in politics, even now. one side takes action to sabotage the other side. >> at the time that you heard that line, what did you make of it? >> not much. >> did you write about it? >> i do not remember what i wrote about it, but i would not have put it in the category of being a dirty trick. it is the sort of thing that would go on both sides come back and forth, always has done, and probably will continue to do.

georgee talking about mcgovern, our 13th contender in our 14-week series. go ahead. >> i was a 17-year-old college student at the time and volunteered for the mcgovern campaign, but i was not able to vote in that election. but my question is, the break- in of the democratic headquarters at the watergate did not appear to be exploited and announced that much by the mcgovern campaign at the time. why was there so much caution with the campaign not to denounce the break-in? it seems to me that the sinister aspects of the break-in may have been a very effective factor and reason for people not to re-elect nixon. i would like to conclude lastly that mr. mcgovern appears to be the only living contender who is available, and i wondered if

he was invited to participate in your program tonight. >> he was invited to participate, and we had planned that he would join us. unfortunately, he took a spill earlier this evening and will not be able to make it. he is doing fine, but regrettably, will not be able to make it this evening. let's take the caller's comments about the watergate break-in. why did the governor not make more of it? >> he certainly tried. the watergate story did not take off the way it should have, the way we would have expected it to. one of the reasons is kind of an inside journalism story. a lot of newspapers including the los angeles times had editors who felt that the story was unprovable and that the washington post was hanging out

there by themselves. they did not always jump in on it. the governor himself had his way with it, but it did not catch on with the press the way he would have wanted it to. >> were the american people reading about it? >> you have to remember that the most discriminating aspects of watergate were revealed after the campaign was over, when the trial began and one of the defendants told the judge that there was more to the story than had come out. a lot of the stuff that came out was too late for it to be of any benefit to mcgovern, but he

certainly did try. >> we have discussed the primary. let's go up to the convention. here is george mcgovern at the convention in miami, joking about giving his speech at 2:30 a.m. >> chairman o'brien, chairman byrd, senator kennedy, senator eagleton and my fellow citizens, i am happy to join you for this benediction of our friday sunrise service. [applause] i assume that everyone here is impressed with my control of this convention and with my choice for vice president, challenged only by 39 other

nominees. >> we are back live from mitchell south dakota at the george mcgovern and museum. scott farris, a presidential author, george mcgovern is this speech at 2:30 a.m. >> they had tried to do away with winner take all primaries, but they granted an exception for california. they realize there was a strong in certain feeling in california that would benefit who ever the insurgent candidate turned out to be.

those were the rules adopted and everybody understood that. they went to the california primary, the last primary before the convention, and now the race had narrowed down to mcgovern and humphrey. mcgovern wad expected to win big. humphrey actually came within five points. at that point, humphrey then said, why should california be winner take all? the commission had talked about a proportional displacement of delegates. why should california be different? i should get half of the delegates from california, because he was trying to stop george mcgovern. they were actually good friends. they had a lot in common. and george mcgovern was shocked that humphrey was going to such lengths to change california.

this went all the way to the convention floor where humphrey had proposed an alternative delegation that were half humphrey supporters and half mcgovern supporters. mcgovern wad trying to beat that back. wednesday was the day they were supposed to submit their vice presidential nominees. people had been up all night. they were having a floor fight over the delegate convention. they did not have a short list of vice-presidential nominees. that was not wildly different than in the past. generally, they did not name the vice presidential nominee until the convention. because of the fiasco in 1972 when eagleton was picked,

nominees are now picked well ahead of the convention so that they can be vetted. it took down to where they could finally get somebody to run as the running mate. he finally submitted the name just a few minutes before the deadline. by that time, he had angered the feminists. they had put a woman nominee yet. that encouraged other people to put up a whole bunch of nominees, a total of 39, some goofy, some serious. by the time they got the balloting done and nominated his running mate, it was almost 3:00 in the morning. >> who was on the possible short list of vice-presidential candidates? >> it started out as a long list. the night that they were supposed to pick the nominee, that morning at the hotel in miami, he called together the

staff, and they sat around this big green covered table in the hotel, and slips of paper were passed around to all of the staff members. all of the staff members were in on the decision as to who should be the vice president. they would write their opinion on a piece of paper and then it would be collected and they would total them. about 20 different people were nominated, and then they narrowed it down to about 10. and then they narrowed it down to six. i do not think i could name all six, but among that group, in addition to eagleton, were ted kennedy, who had said several times he did not want to do it, o'brien, the campaign manager, rubikoff, the governor of connecticut, and two or three

others. they would take a ballot, take another one and another one, and finally they got down to two people. they were eagleton and kevin white, who was a mayor at the time. after some more discussion, they decided it should be kevin white. and they actually called kevin white and offered him the nomination, and he said he would take it. but an economist and member of the massachusetts delegation called the governor and said, you cannot take kevin white. the massachusetts delegation

will walk out. ted kennedy will object. he had to back off and de- nominate kevin white. that left eagleton. another reporter and i were hanging around outside this meeting for a couple of hours. when it finally broke up, we went into the room and found all the pieces of paper. they were torn up. we meticulously put them all together and spent about two hours patching them together to determine who it was going to be. there were so many names and so many little pieces, we wasted our time. >> there was no consensus among the staff. >> they had decided by that time that it would be eagleton, but all of those pieces of

paper were there, and we did not know they had made a decision, so we wasted about two hours playing detective, trying to figure out who it was. >> why did all of these potential running mates say no? when he does choose eagleton, eagleton except. who does that appeal to? >> most of them said no because they thought he was going to lose. even though senator mcgovern had some very good reasons why he thought he would win, nobody thought it would happen. nobody wanted to be associated with a losing campaign. his tactical error was that he thought he could convince senator kennedy to be his running mate. he spent way too much time trying to convince senator kennedy instead of trying to find someone else.

what he wanted to do was represent the insurgent wing of the party. it was the same problem hubert humphrey had in 1968. he wanted to unify the democrats. he was looking for someone who would be acceptable to labor, and urban ethnic, a catholic. that is why kevin white was considered and eagleton fit the bill. eagleton had some presidential aspirations of his own. the communications director and top strategist called senator eagleton and said, is there anything in your past we should know about? and senator eagleton said no, no there was not. >> we will talk more about that eagleton decision and the fallout from it, but first, let me speak to ed in morristown, new jersey. go ahead. >> senator mcgovern took of robert kennedy's banner in 1968. how much support did he receive from the kennedy forces after he received the nomination and added a kennedy member, as you are about to discuss, to the ticket? >> do you want to take that one? >> the campaign enthusiastically for him. the kennedy family campaigned enthusiastically for him.

when eagleton was dropped from the ticket, sargent shriver agreed to be his running mate. they had a great affection for senator mcgovern. he was viewed as a strong ally of robert kennedy. he called him the most decent man in the u.s. senate. the kennedy family was behind him 100%. >> michael in ohio. you are next. >> this talk about the vice president's pick and so on is an example of how messed up that whole scenario seemed to be. what i always wondered was how come the democratic party never stood behind hubert humphrey, who only four years earlier had a very close election with president nixon, and why they would not have backed him all along instead of him just

becoming another person trying to run for office? >> jules witcover. >> one reason was that humphrey had been a presidential candidate before that and had not made it. muskie was so strong, and also you have to remember that nixon -- not nixon, but lyndon b. johnson, was the standard bearer in 1968 until he decided to drop out. humphrey did not get into that

race until lbj dropped out. he did not have the apparatus to go on. i think he probably would have been a good candidate. >> colorado, bud. you are on the air. >> thank you for taking my call and thank you very much for doing this series. we're talking tonight about one of my very favorite americans. the very first campaign that i was ever involved in. i have always been rather amazed at how much this country dismissed senator mcgovern and was willing to reelect richard nixon. i read jules witcover's book of the year it came out, while i was in college.

i could not quite get it. i think the senator has proven himself over decades to be a very great american, and i'm really grateful for c-span presenting this program. >> jules witcover. >> i would agree with the caller that mcgovern was an underrated, under appreciated candidate. he was up against a candidacy, nixon's, that was very aggressive and destruction, and he made some mistakes in his own campaign. they did him in. without the conflicts of the campaign, the dirty tricks and so on, i wonder if he could have won the election.

>> well, let's get into nixon's role and the mistakes mcgovern made. but first, we need to talk about the choice of eagleton. here is the former campaign aide frank explaining the choice. >> the problem was that we had a very tough road to the nomination. it was not clear until the second day of the convention because of an ugly fight involving california, that george mcgovern would get the nomination. that took a lot of time and concentration. it got kind of chaotic. there were three or four days in which to choose a vice president, two days, really. two days, two nights. we all got together and talked.

we named names, through some names around. tom eagleton was, by all measurements, a good candidate. george mcgovern was from a small agricultural state in the north. tom eagleton was from a border state, a catholic with strong ties to labor. on key issues, he was in agreement with mcgovern. it looked like a pretty good fit. you have to remember that we did not have any fbi, any security agencies available to check anybody out. we assumed that tom eagleton who had run statewide and won four or five times as he had, if there was anything but could have come out about him, it would have come out. >> what were you being told about the candidate?

>> the vetting candidates was a very casual sort of thing at that time. there was no indication that there was anything wrong with it. there was very little time, or any reason really, not to take his word for it that he had done nothing that would damage the campaign. >> after the convention, you go to sioux falls. what is happening? what is the story about eagleton? >> i was not there at the time that eagleton went there and met with mcgovern. word came that eagleton had had mental health problems and had

taken psychotherapy twice. mcgovern was satisfied mcgovern was satisfied with the explanation. saying he was for him 1000%. it was hard to back away from that when they realized the reaction they were getting after the disclosure of eagleton's problems. the campaign. >> what happened next? >> there are trying to find a delicate way out of it and they were not able to do that. a couple of things happened.

once the rumors -- or the truth came out about senator eagleton's treatment for depression, which is what he had been diagnosed with. he was also accused of being a drunk driver, which turned out to be false. at that point in time, he was a sympathetic figure. there was a sense that he was being picked on. a lot of people have mental and as. he said he was fine. why shouldn't he stay on the ticket? it seemed like his character was being maligned. there was initially hoped he would quietly resign and go away, but senator eagleton was not feeling that way. he felt his reputation had been damaged. it had not been handled very well. even though senator mcgovern said he was behind thomas eagleton 1000%, he was quietly trying to figure out how to get him off the ticket. there was a very long dance

trying to negotiate eagleton voluntarily resigning from the ticket. what happened was that eagleton essentially wrote out the statement that senator mcgovern would make, and there would be no reference to these mental health problems. that was the only condition under which he would resign. of course, this is now an albatross on the campaign. the struggle to replace eagleton took a very long time. senator muskie called a news conference to announce that he had declined being the nominee. eventually, he turned to sargent shriver, who had been one of the earlier choices but had been out of the country during the democratic nomination. now he was back. he said he would do it. he turned out to be an effective campaigner, but it was disastrous. the campaign was very hurt by the eagleton affair.

it is possible he still never would have won, but he may have carried 10 or 15 states and carried 47% of the vote instead of 37% of the vote. >> how do americans you that decision. >> there was a question of character. many people believed richard nixon was a knockoff of joe mccarthy. they cannot understand how the appeal to middle america. but because senator mcgovern had gone back and forth and maybe not been totally honest about eagleton, nixon now seemed more trustworthy. that hurt him very deeply. he was very sad about that. he now realize that the question was about his character, not nixon's. that was one of the factors that kept water gate from being a big story.

people could not put watergate in context, initially. why would they break into democratic headquarters? nobody knew it was part of a broader strategy of sabotaging democratic campaigns. the bigger story was the eagleton affair, not watergate, and that is one of the reasons the democrats could not capitalize on watergate. iswe'll talk more about what happening with nixon at this time, but first, let me show you a couple of campaign ads from this. >> one of the reasons i am disturbed by the president's $10 million secret election fund is that it indicates that there is something he is afraid to disclose. what are they hiding? i am perfectly willing to publish to be donated every single dollar to my campaign. but the president is covering it up.

it is the sort of thing that puts the tarnish on the whole nation. >> i can only say the thing that motivated my change was a year of collecting pure, unaffected facts. >> i want to make this pledge to sammy and everybody here. whether you're young, old, black, white, i believe in the american dream. sammy davis believes in it. we have seen it in our own lives. years from now, i hope you can look back and say this was one of your best votes. thank you.

>> what is happening with nixon at this point in the general election? how is he campaigning? >> nixon is coasting, basically. he had a very, very disciplined campaign. it was a carryover from his campaign in 1968, where everything was orchestrated, down to the finest detail. that caution came out of his defeat in 1960 when he made the mistake of pledging to go to every state, and campaigned dawn to dusk. as a result of that, he looked terrible. we will all recall the debate he had with john f. kennedy, where he looked like he was going to expire. so, he and his brain trust decided that the best way to

run richard nixon was to limit what he did and always have him at his best. it happened in 1968 and again in 1972. >> what was it like for you to cover the mcgovern campaign versus the nixon campaign? how were they different? >> i covered them both. one difference was that mcgovern was running desperately. they knew that they were not catching on. they traveled widely. it was one of the first campaigns were jet planes were used extensively and they could go back and forth across the country in a day. just as humphrey had done when he lost to nixon in 1968, campaigning too much. one of the successes for nixon in 1968 and 1972 was that the campaign realized that if you gave television just one face to use on the evening news, making it the best face you could.

only do that one piece. whereas humphrey campaigned, as i said earlier, from dawn to dusk. he made a lot of mistakes. he made some good choices. but the media will always pick the most controversial thing, so nine times out of 10, humphrey would look bad and nixon would look good. the same thing applied in 1972 with mcgovern and nixon. >> what is the nixon campaign doing to try to weaken mcgovern? >> again, they are trying to paint him as a radical, out of touch with the american mainstream.

there also staying above the fray, talking about the accomplishments of the nixon administration. and we talk about why mcgovern thought he had a chance to win. he had a number of accomplishments. nixon's first year in office was very controversial. he had expanded the war in vietnam, and domestically, he raised a lot of hackles by instituting wage control. there was inflation. he began the americanization of the war in vietnam, bringing troops home to try to quell the anti-war demonstrations. he tried to counter his image as a pro-warmonger by going to china and establishing relations. he managed to orchestrate events so that his presidency reached its peak in 1972. his great accomplishments in office occurred in 1972 and took away a lot of the arguments about why he should not be supported.

two other things about misjudgments he made. he thought george wallace was going to run again as a third- party candidate and siphon a lot of votes from nixon not only in the south but in the industrial northeast. of course wallace was the victim of an assassination attempt right before the maryland primary, was paralyzed, and was not able to continue the race. he also thought the youth vote would come out in mass in in his favor. surprisingly, he barely won the 18-20 year-old demographic, which showed that despite all

of the attention given to anti- war activists, a lot of americans were still very conservative. >> we know how this story ends. george mcgovern loses in one of the second worst landslides in american history. what is the mood of the campaign? >> when you're on the campaign plane, and you're in this tube flying around the country, you do not know what is going on in the rest of the country. millions of people believed they were going to win and that they could win. the defeat was crashing to them. >> we need to, as we wrap up this discussion about the

general election, we want to move on to the legacy of george mcgovern. but first, a little bit of the senator from his concession speech. then you'll hear a secret white house recording of a phone conversation between president nixon and the special assistant for national security, henry kissinger. >> we suspect that president nixon will come out of this the winner with about 60% of the popular vote and somewhere between 450-500 or more electoral votes. >> i hope that in the next four years you will lead us to a time of peace abroad and justice at home. you have my full support in such efforts with best wishes to you and your gracious wife, pat. sincerely, george mcgovern. >> dr. kissinger and senator humphrey are speaking. it will be a few moments before we can get him.

i have dr. kissinger. go ahead, please. >> hello, mr. president. i wanted to extend my warmest congratulations. >> we all knew it was going to happen. we got our 60%. >> one could not really be sure until we had seen. >> we got every state except massachusetts, and maybe minnesota. >> on the wire, it said that we look forward to working with peace in the years ahead.

i said, ray does not have the right sense of this sort of thing. >> he was ungenerous. what a critic. did you hear that concession statement? he was very gracious at the beginning. forward to working with you andi am not going to send in that kind of wire. would you agree? >> absolutely. he was not generous, unworthy. >> i responded in a decent way. it was as far as i could go, but i am not going to spend much time on him. cue cards from george mcgovern's concession speech. jules witcover, was his concession speech reviewed by others as not gracious? >> i do not think so. it took a paranoid personality like richard nixon to take it that way. >> scott farris, your reaction?

>> it was generally pretty gracious. nixon's telegram to george mcgovern was not particularly warm and friendly either. they both knew that they did not like each other. most people have not gone back and read all of the concession speeches in american history. i actually did that for my book. george mcgovern does get a little more testy than some of the others. barry goldwater is another one. apparently, when you lose in a landslide you're not feeling that good. during nixon's second inaugural, george mcgovern was in england at oxford, and gave a speech in which he was very critical of nixon. that actually caused a lot more comments than the concession speech he gave. i think the concession speech was in the realm of what is expected of a losing candidate.

but the speech in oxford in 1973, a lot of people criticized him for saying those things, especially to a foreign audience. >> we're going to move on to what george mcgovern did after he ran for president in 1972. but first we're going to get to ed in ohio. >> good evening. there is an important article that george mcgovern wrote that was in the washington journal. it is my advice to obama. he went on to say, first, i will

order all troops out of iraq and afghanistan by thanksgiving. >> ed, i am going to leave it there because we're getting a lot of feedback. you have to turn your television down. scott farris, pick it up there with george mcgovern and his impact on president obama. his antiwar views. >> he created a coalition that represents the modern democratic party, the party that elected barack obama in 2008. the obama campaign in 2007-2008 tended to mirror george mcgovern, an insurgent candidate against a more established candidate, hillary clinton. clearly, president obama

followed the george mcgovern blueprint to a certain degree. in terms of the war, george cost mcgovern has said two things. first, he has been disappointed that president obama has escalated american involvement in afghanistan. he has criticized that and suggested that afghanistan could become another vietnam, which of course was the centerpiece of his campaign. he has offered obama a lot of praise, but also expressed his concerns as well. >> duncan in ohio, go ahead. >> thank you for having me. i was just curious if you had ever heard of an organization called bildeberg, and whether george mcgovern had been to a meeting with them? >> i have not heard of that.

>> we continue to talk about george mcgovern and his post- 1972 career. this is bill clinton, who actually ran the george mcgovern campaign in texas, as many of you know. >> think of just the highlights of this fascinating life. pilot, a teacher, congressman, senator, first director of food for peace, author with senator dole of the food stamp program, courageous critic of the vietnam war, first and only person from south dakota so far to be nominated for president, united nations delegate under presidents ford and carter, advocate for disarmament and peace in the middle east. when i was president, united nations ambassador to the food and agriculture organization, recipient of the medal of freedom, and with senator dole, the inspiration for the school

funding program. george did not tell you what happened with the $300 million. there are 130 million children in this world who never darkened a schoolhouse door. their idea was to say to poor kids across the world and to their parents, you can have one good nutritious meal a day no matter how poor you are, but you have to come to school to get it. after we passed that little bit the initiative in a multi- trillion dollar budget, school enrollment around the world in the first year went up by more than 6 million children. >> scott farris, explain why george mcgovern had a passion on this issue and its impact. >> two reasons. one, he was a generally

compassionate man. he saw hunger during the depression. he saw hunger during the war. as a senator from a farm state, he also understood how this was a program with a marvelous capacity to produce food. other farm state senators like senator dole saw the opportunity in this as well. one of the things senator mcgovern did, when the food for peace program was first initiated under the eisenhower administration, it was seen as a way to get rid of agricultural surpluses that the government had purchased, a program from the new deal. george mcgovern said it is a humanitarian thing. it is about feeding the hungry, especially children.

he took the food for peace program, which was a minor program under eisenhower, and dramatically in creased its scope. in six months, he distributed six times as much food as the eisenhower administration had delivered in six years. millions of children around the world got a school lunch. it was probably the greatest humanitarian effort of the kennedy administration, including the peace corps. >> we have about 10 minutes left, talking about george mcgovern. as we told you earlier, we invited senator mcgovern to be on our program this evening. unfortunately, he took a spill earlier tonight and was unable to join us. he has been flown to sioux falls south dakota for further medical attention. unfortunately, he could not be with us.

we wish him the best of health. jake in sioux falls, s.d., go ahead. >> excellent program tonight. my question is whether george mcgovern was ever electable in 1972. could he have been elected if he had avoided eagleton debacle or the late-night speech? >> the conditions we have talked about at some length to night were a mixed bag in the campaign. for all this support that george mcgovern got from war protestors, there were just as many people who did not look at the war that way. they did not think it was a disaster. their attitudes were shaped by president nixon, who played on their patriotism and played on their emotions, and turned the demonstrations that helped

george mcgovern into almost a national disgrace in a way that helped nixon. >> was his political career over after 1972? >> he continued to serve in the united states senate. he was reelected in south dakota pretty handily in 1974. by that time, watergate had come about and president nixon had resigned. senator mcgovern felt a bit of vindication. it is unfortunate that his defeat was so total in 1972 that he was not mentioned as a candidate in 1976. in 1980, there was a big republican wave that brought ronald reagan into office. many democrats lost their seats

in congress. in 1984, george mcgovern launched another quixotic bid for the presidency. he was up against gary hart and former vice president walter mondale. george mcgovern got kudos for being a thoughtful presence. he got credit for trying to heal some of the wounds within the party. he maintained a very active life in public affairs, going back to this passion for addressing world hunger. with bill clinton, he helped work on the world food program, which helped to feed many people. hunger and nutrition remains his passion today, as well as reminding people of liberal values. >> thank you very much.

i think you guys have done your studies. i want to just remind everybody to remember george after "losing" and election. i do not think he lost. i think he moved on to be much better things, like you folks were just talking about with the world hunger program. george has survived wars, being in antiwar person yet willing to step up for our country. i think he is a great peacekeeper, and he understands world politics like we do not understand. my question is, for our country, who in 2012 is the closest candidate that can carry out george mcgovern's policies? who is the closest, best option that we have?

>> it is barack obama. i do not think that any of the republican candidates represent anything akin to the sorts of things that george mcgovern running for president in 1972 or the objectives he has carried out the rest of his life. >> what kind of president would george mcgovern have been? >> i actually think he would have been a pretty good president. i base that on the food for peace program. one of the things you need to bring to the presidency is certain executive management skills. what he did with the food for peace program, without a lot of money, indicates that he was able to carry things out. had he become president, he may have had a difficult time getting us out of vietnam in a way that would have been acceptable to people, but i

think he would have been a fine president. i think he had the qualities of judgment and good will that americans want in their president. >> in the future of liberals in this country? >> again, he has outlined a map for the democratic party to be a major force in politics, to return to its status as the majority party. it is a question of whether the democrats will get over the nostalgias of the new deal coalition. a lot of people remember their parents and families growing up in urban america and would like to restore the democratic party to that labor union ideal. i think senator mcgovern realize that there are more fertile grounds for working with liberalism within the democratic party. there are ways to appeal to minorities, women, to the young, and to continue to broaden their base.

he has shown the way for them to be a viable political force. maybe gary hart is right. without george mcgovern, the democratic party might have ceased to exist as a viable party. >> then give this one to both of you. will there be another antiwar candidate? in the future, like a mcgovern? >> the thing the differentiated him from other anti-war candidate was in his heart, in his soul. i think he might disagree with barack obama, who said he is not against all wars. george mcgovern was not against all wars either because he fought courageously in one. but i think if he had been elected, he would have gone as out of vietnam as soon as he could. it certainly would have been a

lot sooner than nixon did, with the country's tail between its legs. >> scott farris, quickly. >> i do not believe anyone will ever run as an anti-war candidate exactly the way he did. he showed what a presidential candidate can and cannot say about a war when america is involved in it. people were very unsettled of wa candidate can say american is involved in it. people were unsettled when he was so of uncompromising in his language. the democrats have felt the need to stress increased defense spending because they do not want to be called another mcgovern when it comes to foreign affairs. i will be skeptical hearing anybody talk some of war the way george mcgovern did. >> we want to thank the mcgovern center.

pavin, the head of the library at the museum. we would also like to thank exact mortensen, paul, and anne mcgovern. a big thanks to our guests as well. canion and with you, your final thoughts, since you are the author. what is the legacy of george mcgovern? >> he transformed the democratic party in a way that few people have done and. of course, the way his humanitarian efforts may be his greatest effort. who knows how many people are alive today because of george mcgovern. bill clinton was his texas coordinator. that spawned a lot of young idealists who went into politics.

he probably had more influence in that way. >> thank you to you both. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> we are not content with the things as they are. we reject the view of those who say. [applause] >> the 10th cabinet -- the contenders features profiles of people who have run for

president and loss. our series continues next friday. we will be in texas talking with historians and taking your calls about the campaign of ross perot. you can see tonight's program again sunday at 10:30 a.m. eastern. for more information on our series, " to our web site. you will find a schedule of the series and biographies of all the candidates and speeches. >> next, a hearing on the proposed keystone pipeline. then a briefing on the impact of budget cuts. after that, and a discussion on the population living in the united states that is foreign born. >> it is convenient to listen to c-span with the free c-span radio application. you did streaming audio as well

as all television networks 24/7. c-span, it is available wherever you are. >> a house energy subcommittee on expediting -- expediting the permit process in the pipeline project. the obama administration is delaying a decision until after the 2012 elections. republicans and some leaders argued the delay is costing thousands of new jobs. the pipeline would run from alberta, canada through six u.s. states and and in texas. this is just over two hours. >> i call the hearing to order. today's hearing is a direct response to the administration's failure to issue a pipeline, a

permit to build this pipeline. earlier the obama administration led us to believe they would make a decision on the pipeline by december 31, 2011. now the administration says they are incapable of making a decision. the original application was filed of april 2008. in the meantime, tens of thousands of american workers are forced to wait another year for possibly the most shovel ready of all projects. the announcement to delay a decision until after next year's election appears to be political. the president had an opportunity to take action and create jobs for america and he declined to do so it appears he is appeasing

environmentalists and casting aside the opportunity to create jobs. opponents of the pipeline continue me deceive the public with a series of misguided statements such as how pipelines transporting items are dangerous or that the pipeline will increase gasoline prices or how killing a pipeline will stop oil production. rather than confront those opinions with my own words, i want to read a series of quotes. "having canada as a supplier of our oil is better than other countries." "synthetic crude oil and -- are similar in composition to crude oils currently transported in

pipelines in the u.s. and being refined." that was in the state department filing. "gasoline markets would decrease, including the midwest." own thee president's advisers make numerous statements about the keystone pipeline that rabat all arguments against it, -- rebut all arguments against it, why are they waiting to make a decision on this project? even without answers it is safe to assume this latest delay has

nothing to do with safety or even the state of nebraska. instead, it has everything to do with appeasing a small group of opponents of this project. we would like the president to make a policy decisions based on our past and judgment. the most important decisions involve policy risks. since the president did not act, congress must act. if we do nothing, the american people will have to wait another year until after the election to enjoy the benefit of the energy and the jobs the pipeline can bring. we must find a way forward. we must find it fast. today we want to explore whether it means to jobs and the economy. we want to know what remains of

the review process and how can be corrected. the pipeline has suggested that 57 safety measures for this pipeline, this is the most advanced and a safe this pipeline ever proposed. it has 16,000 data points along the 1,661 mile route to detect leaks. that is a center for every 500 feet. i want to thank all of the witnesses for being here to explore this important project. we look forward to your testimony. i would like to yield and the ranking member of the subcommittee for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

today we are holding a hearing to discuss ways to force the obama administration to make a decision on the keystone pipeline. even after the republican legislature and the governor in nebraska recently voted to reroute the pipeline away from the region in the district. as i understand it, the bill was just signed into law two weeks ago on november 22 to. it formalizes the plan to

conduct its own supplemental environmental review of a yet to be determined new route and then the review was not being completed until late 2012. it is hard to believe that they want to trample all over the rights of the state of nebraska. i believe it is necessary for the administration to conduct a review of the pipeline's new and proposed routes before they issue a final consensus. we're understand that and under the current majority in congress, issues such as environmental protection and

safeguards are a secondary in importance to allowing the industry to move forward unfettered and unrestricted. i believe the obama administration is asking responsibly and as a law requires in allowing the state of nebraska to conduct its own environmental review of the new route. is this about to jobs from our republican colleagues? they would not stifle each and every aspect of every job creating program that president

obama has been pressuring congress to act on including new infrastructure projects which would put a thousands of construction workers back to work. if this committee wanted to work on creating jobs, why not support the american jobs act? it occurs to me that this is one more of a long line of opportunities for my colleagues to try to hammer a the obama administration and portray the president does not doing enough to spur job creation when it is a majority party in this house, your party, mr. chairman, who

have stated it is their highest priority, their main goal, to make president obama, regardless of how it affects the rest of the country. i am interested to hear from all of our panelists on the issue of jobs. as well as the research and development of green alternatives for projects. i yield to the rest of my time to mr. green of texas. >> thank you. i would think my ranking member for allowing me to give a statement. i am disappointed with their release on the grant a permit for the keys to a pipeline. it has been 38 months since a transcanada first filed an application to build and

operate to the keystone project. other international pipelines were granted within 18 months. it is in our interest to have a stable source of crude oil. there are thousands of jobs on the line. i represent five refineries in the houston area who would like to be a customer of our neighbor to the north. i am disappointed with the direction of the ministrations. we know that our construction workers cannot afford to let. i appreciate to inviting my friends to be our witnesses. my whole -- this has become so contentious and it is about to jobs and energy security. hopefully we will work on it in the future. >> i recognize the chairman for his opening statement.

>> thank you for holding this hearing. i wish it was not necessary. the white house has showed us the final decision would come by the end of 2011. to guarantee a timely decision on the project and a formal statement of policy called it a necessary because the state department was committed to reaching a decision by december 31. last month the white house announced what many had feared, this should ministration had no intention of making a decision. the longer it is delayed, the latter did -- the detractors have become. while environmentalists wage a campaign, it will continue regardless of the decision. workers represented by some of today's witnesses are clamoring

for the job creation potential of the pipeline. i am willing to take a position to profit until after the election. just a few yards from scoring a touchdown, they called a timeout. president obama had a chance to greenlight a private sector project that would create 20,000 construction jobs, strengthen security, and create 118,000 spinoff jobs. he did not do that. he played politics and put them above jobs. president obama has been using the slogan we cannot wait as he travels around but that is to what he told the workers who want to support the pipeline. that is what she told families looking for secure energy supplies. it could last forever.

another delay could kill the project. at least for the united states. we are not the only country in need of the supply. our neighbor could look at other customers around the globe if we continue to stop. the canadian prime minister talked about the necessity of canada making sure we are able to access asian markets for our energy products. that will be an important priority of his government going forward. this pipeline is an opportunity to access energy from our closest friend and ally, reduce reliance on sources such as the middle east. have we learned nothing from 1973? oil from canada delivered a soloist transportation cost could help stabilize u.s. or

prices and the price of gas. it only makes sense to keep the refining here at home which means jobs and a stable supplies. i visited a manufacturer who had miles of pipe ready to go for use on this pipeline. without a decision, it sits in a stockyard waiting for the white house to take american workers off the bench and say yes to a project and that creates jobs and increases our energy security. we can discuss or we go from here and take a look at the price -- pipeline. i look forward to hearing from our witnesses. i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from nebraska. >> this is about to jobs. good, high-paying labor jobs.

i think we have a good solution. a bill that will be introduced with the support of full committee chair and everybody sitting here right now. it would recognize and nebraska's compromise to move the pipeline off of the sand hills area and reroute it. it is the goals of those suing heart -- are engaged with the governor's office that they think they can have the environmental study finished within six months. it is a move about 50 miles off of a sensitive area. it is a good compromise. the bill i am introducing recognizes that, when the

department of environmental quality is finished, they will submit that according to our legislation to the expert agency in pipelines and understands pipeline safety and will understand that it's much greater than the state department about pipeline safety. then will have 30 days to review that supplemental. to determine whether it is appropriate and we will issue the permit. the point is to avoid the politics and get to the jobs. i yield back. >> at this time we recognize the ranking member of california for his opening statement. >> we all want more jobs. that is why i support the jobs program. it is being blocked by the republicans because they do not

wanted to be paid for by any increases on taxes for billionaires. instead, they want to get jobs from areas that benefit to some of their best friends. the oil companies in particular. my concern is that keystone would make this more reliant on the dirtiest source of fuel available. it and it's more carbon pollution than conventional oil, 40% by some estimates. what this pipeline would do would carry a sludge made from canadian tar sands through the middle of america on a pipeline. that is because it takes a lot of energy to take something with the consistency of tar and turn it into a synthetic oil.

we should be reducing our dependence and using cleaner fuels. keystone is a big step in the opposite direction. by moving refineries, the pipeline would open world markets to tar oil. the pipeline would remove existing constraints, increasing carbon pollution for decades. it would be the equivalent to building five coal power plants. last month there was a world energy outlook for 2011. they found that in five years, business as usual investments in energy would lockean enough carbon pollution to commit the world to devastating warming of 11 degrees fahrenheit or more.

the chief economist called such an outcome in catastrophe for all of us. we face a choice. business as usual and climate catastrophe or making the necessary changes to mitigate the damage. keystone xl is the wrong choice. supporters make arguments that do not stand up to scrutiny. they say it will enhance energy security for the united states. the department of energy found we will have excess capacity from canada for the next decade or more even without keystone exile. there is nothing to stop refineries from exporting the refined product. that does not improve our energy security. the obama administration's

standards will do more to boost our security by saving 1.8 billion parent of oil will saving consumers money at the pump. yet the republicans, are beating up the obama administration for establishing the standards. supporters also say that if we do not do it, the oil will go to asia. that is far from certain. there are legal and political hurdles including unified opposition for more than 70 nations with water rights in the pipeline route. it also exists off the british columbia coast. minister said that absent new pipelines, our greatest risk is that might 2020, we will be landlocked.

when argument we will hear is legitimate. the project would produce several thousand short-term construction jobs. it is on all of our minds and the witnesses today. people need jobs. partitive deconstruction industry. with this project, we will pay a high price over a long time for some short-term benefits. instead we should be focusing on clean energy jobs that are going to last. there is going to be 38 trillion dollars invested in infrastructure over the next 20 years. our national security will be determined by whether we succeed in building these new industries. i support the decision to take additional time to do an evaluation of the climate and other environmental impacts of

this proposed pipeline. it is imperative we start to move to a clean energy economy now. keystone axa would take us in the opposite direction. i would like to ask to put my full statement into the record. i would like to ask consent that we enter into the record written statements from the transport workers union of america and the cornell university transport workers union to discuss the reasons for their opposition to the pipeline and the testimony discussing their analysis associated with this project. the conclusion is the pipeline will produce fewer jobs than has been claimed. >> without objection. i would like to ask consent that

a rare bottle of the cornell university study -- rebuttal of the cornell university study be put and the record as well. thank you to our witnesses to being with us today on this important issue. we have mr. alex pourbaix, president of transcanada corp. brent booker, the director of the construction of apartment -- department. the assistant director both legislative and political affairs. we have david, the special representative, journeymen and apprentices of the pipe fitting industry of the united states and canada pipeline division. we have bruce burton, a

representative for the brotherhood of electrical workers. we haven't jerome -- have jerome ringo and ms. jane clebb, executive director of coal to nebraska. we welcome all of you. we recognize each one of you for five minutes for your opening statement. in the middle of the desk there is a light. when it goes red, your five minutes are up. we are going to try to get through the statements before we have of votes on the floor. i do not know if we will be successful. alex pourbaix, you have five minutes for your opening statement. be sure to put your microphone on.

>> transcanada is a $50 million company with more than six years of experience in the reliable operations of north american infrastructure. we employ 4200 employees with half of them in the united states. we operate the largest gas we operate the largest pipeline in north america. keystone will bring many benefits to the u.s. but the most important role is to bring energy security to the united states during what has been some very unsettling times overseas. they want to continue to import high-priced oil from unfriendly

regions? the keystone will have to link canadian and u.s. crude supplies to the largest refining markets in the u.s.. canada plus oil reserves are vast. this compares to the u.s. reserves of 21 billion barrels. many people forget that while transporting oil from canada, this will transport domestic crude oil. growing domestic production has been a goal of the united states. there is some significant price discounting that has been

received for the production. this will create valuable jobs for americans. this would have created over 4000 construction jobs this year in texas, oklahoma, texas. these are high-paying jobs. construction in nebraska would have traded an additional 9000 construction jobs. on top of that, there are 7000 manufacturing jobs associated with this project. these thousands of direct construction jobs were planned to begin next year. the majority of them more union jobs. contracts and subcontracts have been awarded to dozens of u.s. companies. local businesses along the route would have benefited from 118,000 spin-off jobs that would

have been created through increased business. keystone is expected to add a $20 billion to the u.s. economy and they will pay half a billion dollars in taxes. the need for prompt approval is crucial today when the u.s. consumers are struggling to cope with the high cost of gasoline. specifically, this project has a capability to reduce u.s. dependence on opec oil supplies. the type of canadian crude that keystone would ship is very similar to the heavy crude that is already refined. canadian oil is not new or different. more than 2 million barrels a day is imported and reform it -- refined daily. i want to talk one minute about pipeline safety. many people have talked about pipeline safety. one of the core values is to

ensure the safety of the facilities. we are using the latest technologies and the strongest type to build a pipeline. we have agreed to implement 57 additional safety conditions that significantly exceed the current federal standards. they include such requirements as bearing the pipe deeper in ground, placing more isolation valves along the route. this will be monitored 24 hours a day, seven days a week. we have 21,000 points along the entire route of the pipeline which will link the satellites. if any of these sensors detect a drop in pressure, the control center will remotely close valves and isolate the line. the project has gone through a thorough review process. this has been the most

exhaustive and detailed review ever conducted of a crude oil pipeline. the state department concluded that keystone would be the safest pipeline ever constructed in the u.s.. we submitted our presidential permit and are now faced with a potential delay of 12 months or more bringing the total time to 50 months. the length of this review was unprecedented and would be -- would be beyond anyone's reasonable expectations. the fundamentals of this project have not changed. this will help to reduce the u.s. reliance on higher price and unstable foreign oil from venezuela and the middle east. we are going to create 20,000 jobs at a time when unemployment -- when employment

is needed. we can create jobs immediately and we would very much like to get started. >> thank you very much. >> we do have a vote on the floor right now and we have about three minutes left. we will have of that a total of seven votes which means it would probably be an hour before we get back. i will apologize to you in advance. we do have some marvelous delicatessens downstairs. we look forward to hearing all of your testimony when we come back and then we will resume our questioning.

>> thank you for your patience. mr. barnett, do you mind if we start with you? if you could please give us your statement. five minutes. go ahead. >> thank you, congressman. good morning, chairman. i am a special representative the that is association of plumbers and pipefitters which represents more than 340,000 members in the u.s. and canada. i would like to thank you for allowing me to testify. i am a third generation of the united association. i began my career 35 years ago.

pipelines are all i have ever constructed. this is a leading trade union representing pipes and graphs in the u.s. and canada. my own local union is based in tulsa, oklahoma. this would comprise the largest single craft working on the project. the added association spends nearly two ended million dollars in trying to make sure that we are the best trained and highly skilled that our industry has to offer. that association strong supports the keystone pipeline for several good reasons. this is a project represents billions of dollars in capital investment, hundreds of millions in tax revenue and approximately 13,000 construction jobs. i cannot emphasize how important these are. the construction industry has wrestled with unemployment as

high as 27%. we have seen countless working families lose their livelihood, their homes, and some cases, their hope of a better life. these are not just jobs we're talking about, they are american families. with the best parts about this project is that it is funded entirely with private sector dollars which means that all of these benefits, and zero cost to the taxpayer. according to the u.s. department of energy, oil and natural gas will be needed to meet over half of our needs through at least 2035. for this reason, now a critical for us to secure a long-term supply of crude oil. standing in the way are significant challenges including middle east instability in key oil-producing regions. also substantial growth in worldwide demand.

our friends in canada command the third largest oil reserves and the world and provide us with more oil than any other country. we will be baltimore of our oil from canada and less from the middle east. there are complaints about the burma until impact. the fact of the matter is that it has been subjected to the most extensive review of any pipeline project in recent memory. -- there are complaints about the environmental impact. canada oil sounds will be built -- developed whether we build this or not. the next best option would be a pipeline to serve china. it is hard to see how the environment is better off with the oil processed by china rather than the u.s..

well pipelines are already the most environmentally safe method for transporting petroleum, transcanada has plans to make this the safest in america. by coating the pipeline with a resistance shell, going deeper into the ground and signing the project labor agreement with the best work force in the world. there are pipelines that we should be concerned about. across the country there are thousands of miles of 5100 year old oil and gas pipelines that are well beyond their useful life. we have seen many of them explode or burst causing death. one example is the kalamazoo river.

we should be will to get behind efforts. in focus and attention, we have zeroed in on the model pipeline rather than the problem pipelines. our hope is that we can move forward with the pipeline and on to a discussion of those which cause a problem. >> we will move back then from our left to right as we see it. mr. booker, you have five minutes. >> i would like to think you and the members of the committee for holding this hearing. this will remove oil from candidate. we have been involved in this project for three years and believe that the benefits are

too many to allow west to be derailed by environmental extremists. this will create good paying jobs in the u.s. and canada, increase the energy security by providing a source of oil by a friendly partner. for many members, this is not just a pipeline, this is a lifeline. the construction sector has been hard hit by the recession. 1.1 million construction workers are currently without a job. too many americans are out of work. no one can argue that this project would create thousands of good jobs for construction workers almost immediately and we desperately need the infusion of capital that would be traded

by this pipeline. this is the high road and plummet which will allow people to earn wages and benefits. while economic experts might disagree of the scale of the impact, there is no dispute that this will have a ripple effect on consumer spending. there are many groups of side of the construction industry that cannot understand the positive impact that this will have four workers. the development of the oil for sans will cease. the evidence is overwhelming that with or that this pipeline, there will likely be no effect on the production of oil from western canada. many of these groups have resorted to attack the nature of the work that many have chosen as carriers. they believe that this is of a

lesser value because the job will come to an end. they call them temporary in order to diminish their importance and they recruit others to join with them and claim that those jobs have no real value. they should be ashamed of themselves. most employees in the construction area work full time. they might work weekends, holidays, to finish a job. inclement weather can halt construction work. construction projects tikrit work for people with many different talents and educational backgrounds. managers, engineers and inspectors, for example. i would suggest to those that seem to dismiss the work, you should think long and hard about the people whose values seek to diminish. construction of this pipeline will produce needed government revenue at the federal, state, and local revenue it -- levels.

this can help to avoid harmful budget cuts. there are also considerable environmental benefits with the oil imports from canada. gulf coast refineries will continue to seek supplies of heavy crude oil. failure to secure it from canada will force them to increase their reliance on foreign sources. this will be carried by oil workers to come from nations other than our own. this would be the safest pipeline built in the world. the conditions voluntarily agreed to have a degree of safety have a degree -- have a degree of safety greater than any currently implemented. this is designed so that if there is a rupture, it goes too

solid ground and not ground water. if the pipeline is not built, canadian producers will seek alternatives to american markets? the producers will find ways to get this to the market. denial of a presidential permit increases the likelihood that american markets will miss the opportunity to secure long-term commitments for this research which could be forever lost. our nation will rely on unstable nations to meet our needs. this will allow our nation to develop safe and reliable energy from a friendly nation. the administration thinks to create a theatrical rather than the will of the american people. 60% of voters at least somewhat supporting this the plant.

if the opponents prevent it from being built, the social economic benefits will not be realized. there were no doubt there will be no increase in income and we will continue to import oil from unstable regimes. critically important to our members, the jobs that will be created. thank you for inviting us to participate. >> 9 here on behalf of the international union of operating engineers. thousands of members to operate heavy equipment in the sector hope to build the pipeline. this is profoundly disappointed but the state department's

decision to postpone until 2013 and this leaves in question that thousands of jobs as a general president said in his recent letter to secretary clinton, because of the unique authority that the administration possessed tikrit jobs immediately, without congressional action or public investment, this will reverberate throughout the membership of operating engineers. what will happen if the state department's action kills the project. first, with out the pipeline, american crude oil from this formation, the fastest growing oil fields in the u.s. will continue to move out of the region and the most dangerous and expensive way possible.

the state department and are meant to review says that tracking is 87 times more likely to result in a fatality than a pipeline. trucks are 35 times more likely to result in a fire ant or explosion that a pipeline. the rapid growth of crude production in the formation has outstripped the infrastructure to move it. according to environmental review, much of the oil moves to refinery by truck. more are expected later with a dramatic growth. without the keystone, this would

be transported to refineries in ways that increase risks to the environment and human health and safety. second, with or about this pipeline, there will likely be no effect on the production of oil sands from western canada. the third point is that the united states might lose a chance to secure a long-term energy supply from our canadian allies. canadian producers will be forced to seek alternatives to american markets. for those who think asian options for canadian crude are speculative and unrealistic, i just make three quick observations. first, the norton gately project in which moved canadian for british export is but one option. there is another option to extend a trans mountain pipeline

to export to china. crude tankers are common at the port of vancouver facilities. 71 tankers departed the terminal to deliver oil sands in 2010. the state-owned chinese companies have dramatically increased their presence in canadian oil sands. one has gone to extraordinary lengths to in offer not only an equity investment but also to offer technical assistance. even since the release of the final environmental impact statement, an article in september identified a second chinese oil company that has taken in in direct financial interest in the project. without the pipeline, gulf coast refiners will continue to demand heavy crude with all of

its national security consequences. finally, if the pipeline is not built, the socio-economic benefits of the project will not be realized and there will be no local, state, federal revenue. there will be no jobs created. that means that there will be no employer contributions to the health and welfare funds of members of the operating engineer and other craftworkers. there will be no contributions to pension and retirement funds for these workers. there will be no investments in the future of the industry in apprenticeship and training and our labor management programs for the sector. it is clear that many of these workers will remain jobless. it is no wonder why the state department concludes that the keystone xl is preferable to no

project as a -- no project at all. one wonders why this has been postponed. >> mr. burton, you are recognized for five minutes. >> good morning, members of the committee. my name is bruce burden, i am an international representative of the international brotherhood of electoral workers. we thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this keystone xl project. as an electrician who began his apprenticeship in 1981, i have very distinct memories of members of my local union telling stories about their work on the trans alaska pipeline. members of my local union spent

months working on the trans alaska pipeline, which covers 800 miles and carries oil from the north slope of alaska to valdez. to this day, depending on the season, between 2000 -- members from across the u.s. were able to save their homes during the rough economic times of the night -- late 1970's because they were able to work on the trans alaska pipeline. the primary concern in our energy debate is jobs. like the trans alaska pipeline of 35 years ago, this pipeline project would create jobs and help our members through this difficult economic period. in his letter to the secretary of state hillary clinton requesting approval of the presidential permit necessary to

build keystone, the president wrote in a "at a time when job creation should be the top priority, the pipeline project will put americans back to work and have a ripple effect throughout the economy. the pipeline will create 20,000 direct jobs and 118,000 indirect jobs. ibew look forward to being a part of this historic project." journeymen electricians, linemen, estimate control technicians would be working on the pump stations which will move oil through the pipeline. the pump stations are to be located 50 miles apart and built on small parcels of land approximately five to 10 acres each. each station contains between

two and five pawns which are electrically driven, 6500 horsepower high-voltage. each station will require approximately 6000 alleged labor hours to complete. in addition, many of the pump stations are to be built in remote locations. for example, in nebraska, a new transmission line would need to be built that would be 74 miles long and carry 115,000 volts. this project within a project is valued at $49 million and would provide approximately 55,500 hours of labor. just like the developments from the transgendered election of -- from p trans alaska pipeline.

transformers built in pennsylvania to the men and women who will work from the pipeline itself. workers from all over the u.s. would benefit. this would also include the united association of plumbers and pipefitters, the international union of operating engineers, and the pipeline contractors association. only the highest skilled workers would be employed in the project. this will insure the most well built, safest pipeline possible. today, the u.s. is experiencing the worst economic downturn since the great depression. this is shall already picked up as soon as the permit is granted, jobs would be created. -- this shovel ready project can

be picked up as soon as the permit is granted. >> would you do me a favor -- sorry to interrupt? will you pull your microphone closer to you? is it on? >> is this better? >> perfect. thank you. >> my name is jerome ringo. i am the chief executive officer for an all g project that -- algae budget that is creating alternative technologies. my thanks to the chairman, the ranking member, and those of the committee to inviting me to speak on this most important subject. i spent over 25 years working,

in the louisiana petrochemical energy as a member of the oil and atomic workers union. i spent 13 years on the board of directors on the national wildlife federation. i became chairman of that organization. i was also president of the apollo alliance, a coalition on alternative energy. i would like to offer a long- term perspective on america's energy choices. understanding america's growing appetite for energy and our need for economic stimulation, it is important we meet this energy demand with smart choices for our economy while minimizing adverse impact on the safety of the water, air, and lands we depend on american workers have proven again and again that we can create jobs by pursuing environmentally smart pass

forward. i recognize the impact of the construction projects. but sometimes the best intentions can deliver negative results. i agree with barack obama. they said we need to take the time to understand the impact of this project and not rush to build. the obvious destruction and contamination of northern canada along the it -- along with the help and in our middle risk to americans is enormous. the impact of communities surrounding gulf refineries have never been adequately examined. according to a nasa scientist, tar sands are a game over scenario with respect to climate change. the keystone xl pipeline will transfer a highly corrosive and toxic tar sands under high pressure along more than 2,000 miles, crossing waterways and

jeopardize in the quality of life -- quality of life of citizens along its roots. a small part of the keystone xl pipeline has been moved. i am not reassured because i now wonder what part of america is. to be willing to sacrifice the next spill of a magnitude. according to the state department's and our mental impact statement, a spill from the pipeline could reach a worst-case scenario -- 2.8 million gallons. if we pay attention to michigan, we can see the consequences because it has happened. last year, a similar pipeline spilled more than 1 million gallons of tar sands oil into the kalamazoo river. the river is still closed today. it ruined drinking water. it hard the safety of nearby residents and killed while by. the epa says it is recovering 1.1 million gallons from the kalamazoo and that there is no

end in sight because tar sand is more difficult to clean up than conventional oil. we have no idea how much oil was spilled. as we continue our dependency on foreign oil with the goal to declare energy independence, it is critical we do not ship our dependency from middle east oil to canada. our goal is not to switch sheets -- switch seats on a sinking ship. the answer lies in increased investment in the research and development of clean alternative energy products. this is a win-win on jobs, national security, and the environment. a clean fuel strategy is of real, powerful, and right -- and await right now. the fuel economy standards recently enacted cut america's need for oil by $3.40 make --

3.4 million barrels per day. that is more than three times the proposed capacity of the keystone xl. that equals low savings greater than the proposed pipeline plus all the oil currently imported from the persian gulf. more than 125,000 direct jobs have been added in the auto industry. energy investment is a long- term investment. we need to think long-term, mr. chairman. i urge congress to put the long- term interest of the american people as a top priority and not rush to build the keystone xl pipeline. >> thank you, rep. and represent his are asking me to be with you today on an issue that has captivated our state. i am the head of an advocacy

group called "bold and nebraska upper "hearings like today give us a sense an opportunity to not only thank you for our dedication -- your dedication to our country, but also to ask for your help. president obama made a tough and right decision by asking pour more time to study this pipeline. he stood up for our families, or landowners, our farmers, our ranchers who have been bullied by transcanada. i asked you today to also stand with us as we figure out a path forward. our broad coalition of individuals and groups speaking out against the pipeline have become much more than just a group speaking out on an issue. we have become a family and we are doing everything we can to defend our land and our water. some will say that because we passed two bills last month in our state that everything is fine in nebraska. everything is not fine.

transcanada has yet to propose a new route that will avoid the sand hills. land owners are still on pins and needles easement transcanada now owns -- the land can be sold to other oil pipeline companies today. we have not even started the new process to study this pipeline and, yet, are being bullied -- being told by members of congress that we need a decision between a 30-60 days. we are looking to you, our elected officials, and each of our elected officials back home to do right by land owners and to do right by small businesses like clear creek organic, which relies on a clean, abundant source of water. these small businesses are ranchers and farmers. they produce jobs every day. tax revenue every day as well

as excellent cheese and meat. but the transcanada keystone xl pipeline is all too easy to turn this into the all too familiar jobs versus environment frame. we believe this pipeline represents more than one energy projects. we think it endangers much more than any other jobs that transcanada or their allies claim it will produce. we have seen figures ranging from 3000 to 1 million. steven cole bear did a funny bit about all of the jobs that would be -- stephen colbert get a funny bit about all the jobs that this pipeline would create. we must and figure out a way to create jobs while protecting our land and water. this pipeline is risky. it is massive. we literally have no long-term studies on how car stands will

affect our land, water, and -- tar sands will affect our land, water, and air. we literally have no idea how tarzan's will affect our land, water, and our help. -- tar sands will affect our land, water, and our help. hundreds of families have been displaced from their homes. they have had to move because of the tar sand spill that happened in their backyard. i am asking for your help to get a study done on parks and so it can be firm, and we can be clear answer -- tar sand and so it can be firm and clear. there will be very clear answers that we can find in pass 4 together. while the permit process may seem like it is taking too long, we still have no proposed route in nebraska. again, we have no study on how tar sands affect us. if this oil is meant for the united states, then attach that

to a bill. make it clear that this oil is guaranteed for the united states because, right now, there are no guarantees. we know that transcanada and other tar sands companies need to get to our port -- whether it is the gulf, whether it is main e, whether it is of the porch. they need our ports to sell their commodity on the international projects. this process to have taken a long time. it has been over three years since transcanada has been bullying our land owners. it has been three years since they started threatening eminent domain. it has been three years with our state being bombarded with misleading ads about job claims and revenue. next week we will release a report that shows transcanada has over promised on how much they are paying our counties in nebraska. just because you create jobs

does not give you the green light to take american planned for your private gain. that is what transcanada is doing. six families in south dakota are in court with transcanada trying to protect their land. as a nation, we are facing our next moon challenge. energy is our moon challenge. when i looked at my three little girls, i want to make sure that i, as their mom, did everything i could to buy it for sustainable energy. i know each of you want to do that as well. we want energy that revitalizes our communities, not puts them at risk. i know that as americans we can meet these challenges. we can do right by landowners and workers because we are americans and we can do this together. thank you. quite thank you. at this time i want to thank all of you for your testimony. it is very insightful.

at this time, i will yield to the gentleman from illinois. you are recognized for five minutes. >> think you, mr. chairman. i am going to board a plane. that plane -- actually when i fly from st. louis -- it is heavy crude from canada and that is already piped down to my refinery which is refined there and then piped to the land -- airfield. many times the jet fuel i used to go back and forth is already established. you are seeing jobs already because of this. it is the third largest oil then you in the world. you talk about north american energy security, this is what you talk about i have been at up to the oil sands. these things are massive. they are five stories tall.

the tires are one story tall. uaw, teamster drivers -- this is what the argument is about. this stuff is already coming into the country. it is going to the marathon refinery in robinson, ill.. good pay, great benefits, members of organized labor -- already benefiting. how many pipelines go through right now? >> only one crude oil pipeline? >> the question is how many pipelines. >> can i answer your question? >> the question is how many pipelines code through? >> there is one crude oil pipeline. >> what is the other one? >> there are no of the ones. "there are three pipelines. >> you are absolutely incorrect. >> i am reclining my time. >> i live in nebraska.

>> reclining my time, ma'am. >> that is fine. the oil causes cancer. >> people are more than welcome to come to view this. i have studied it at this stuff quite a lot. mr. booker, how many jobs do you project will be produced from your segment? >> for the labor -- laborers international union, it is a guest. i can tell you other projects we have done. the ruby pipeline in el paso was 680 mines -- miles. the pipeline generated $24 million in fringe benefit contributions for our members. "this is a 1,700 mile pipeline that is being produced. how many jobs do you think's this will produce? >> we expect this project to

create over 1500 jobs. >> you talk about the trans alaska pipeline. you all tried to highlight this. my father in law with a microwave to expect -- michael a technician. he moved to alaska for those jobs. -- microwave technician. the move to alaska for those jobs. you talk about the engines being built and the high-transmission lines. the same time that my father-in- law moved to alaska for the high-paying jobs -- mrs. -- >> contractors have shared their proprietary estimates for the project in excess of 3 million hours are estimated from a number of the contractors. >> how much government money is going into this? anyone? >> not a dime.

>> is this a shovel ready project in your view? members of organized labor? >> yes. >> yes. >> which sector is the president going to mess over by making a decision? is he going to blow off his supporters in organized labor or is he going to blow of his friends on the environmental left after the election? does anyone have an idea? he has to do one, right? i am steny with labor and i am steny with jobs. sometimes -- i am expanding at with labor and i am standing with jobs. this is not the fight. if you want to help the president of the united states win reelection, this is the fight that he should have for jobs -- 20,000 jobs. the last.

i will make is the biggest oil spill occurred where? prince william sound. how many gallons? not gallons -- how many millions of gallons? 55 million gallons of oil through a tanker. do not come and preach to us about these bills from a pipeline when the biggest environmental damage that can occur is tankers traveling around the world. i yield back my time. thank you, mr. chairman. >> now we recognize another gentleman from illinois, the ranking member, mr. rush, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. [unintelligible] i am extremely sensitive to the issue of jobs and unemployment.

in fact, my district the unemployment rate is more than twice the natural -- national average. we have multigenerational of unemployed people residing in my district. some are concerned about jobs and have been for many years. numerous hearings on keystone xl and the pipeline as well as in private meetings in my office, i have had many experts from the american petroleum destitute to the association of oil pipelines to individual

industry representatives. it seems like no one can give me an answer. i am for jobs and the environment, but i am also for jobs for minority and women- owned businesses. i cannot find one scintilla of evidence that there are any minority-owned businesses or contractors in this entire industry. not one. i am literally blew in the face. the fact that none of these so- called experts could give me an estimate of the level of minorities involved in the construction of pipelines and this country leads me to believe

that the numbers are so small. to shed more light on this issue -- the pipeline safety authorization bill is currently being negotiated. i have all of my union friends here. some of them are friends. i am disturbed and surprised at some of the issues right now. i want to ask each one of you who are representing labor, can you see any meaningful level of participation by minority contractors or businesses that are engaged? if not today, can you for that information to my office?

i want to know how many minority contractors and how many minority businesses are associated with the pipeline industry. mr pourbaix, can you answer that question? >> i do not have the figures in front of me. i can provide them. what i could say showing the support we have for minority businesses, business people, and laborers is we have the full support of the hispanic chamber of commerce, the full support of the hispanic veterans association. that is just an example that we do have significant support among minorities in this country. perhaps some of the other gentleman in labor could shed some further light on that. >> i do not have any specific information regarding the question. we will be happy to forward to

your office on the conclusion of the hearing. >> our operating injures -- engineers are happy to provide you statistics. we are systematically tracking that data and can provide you a good look at what we do for people of color and women in the operating engineers union. >> first of all, i would like to say we are a membership driven organization. we do not track that type of information. we do have a large number of minorities in our local unions that we are very proud of who go out there every day and perform their work. those are the people we go to bat for every day. >> mr. chairman, i know my time i am hearing at stuff i cannot dance to. i am sorely disappointed. this committee and this subcommittee is.

to have to address this issue. pour the members of labor -- for the labors -- for the members of labor to come before this committee and not have a good firm data is not good. i yield back my time. >> at this time we will recognize mr. mckinley. he also has transportation issues. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i went back to look at some of the things that were said back in the 1970's for the alaska pipeline. there the criticism was the effects on the tundra, population, geographic features, and the lack of engineering. then they went ahead and built it. 800 miles long, 48 inches in diameter, across three mountain chains, 30 rivers. it seems to have worked.

today, i am curious in the last 30-something years since the pipeline was put in in the 1970's, how much we have improved. in purred the scare tactics from our friends on the other sock -- i have heard the scare tactics from our friends on the other side that this is a difficult product to handle, but i think engineers have developed ways of handling that. we can have ceramic-lined pipes. we can do a lot of things. if we can pipe hydrochloric acid, we sure as the dickens can pipe crude oil. i am just curious from a construction background, some of the improvements we have made -- i assume that 30 years later we did not have f80 steel. we now used that. some of the welding techniques

we have learned over the years that have developed from our friends in the construction energy -- construction industry -- can you amplify a little bit about some of the improvements that have happened and why we should have a greater comfort level? >> i would be happy to. if you take a look at pipelines, the majority of black line incidents come from corrosion of the pipeline and at third-party strikes. whether it is a back hoe, some third-party agency acting on the pipe. since the alaskan pipeline was built -- less talk about corrosion come up for example. today, all new pipelines are built of much stronger steel. you mentioned x80 steel. it is much stronger. on the corrosion side, every pipeline built has protection by

running an electric current through the pipes to limit corrosion. every joint of the pipe we will build is coated with fusion-bond epoxy coating. you would expect 50 years from now you take those joints of pipe out of the ground and they would have no evidence whatsoever of corrosion. that is how far the industry has come. online strikes, as i said we are using stronger steel. one of the special conditions which we voluntarily agreed to with this pipeline is instead of burying the pipe 3 feet under the surface, we are burying at 4 feet under the surface, which would remove that risk. we have accepted a -- an obligation to maintain that depth of cover of the entire the pipeline is operational. finally, when it comes to leak detection, you heard other people talk about that today. we have 21,000 sensors on this

pipeline. they regenerate data every five seconds. if there is a drop in pressure, we will know immediately and the pipeline will be shut down automatically in literally minutes. at that point, you have a clean up situation. >> what was the ratio -- what was it like on those detectors on the alaskan pipeline? >> i do not know the exact amount, but they would have a redundant the protection systems. >> there was an issue raised by someone that makes some good points. one had to do with bonds. years ago back in the 1970's, debate would not use the epdm liners. they used clay liners. our construction knowledge has

expanded so much over these 30 years, will be beat -- will you be using liners? >> we do not produce any oil ourselves. we just moved it. what i would say -- a good number to think about that is going forward, approximately 75% of all future oil developments in the oil sands are going to be done through drilling with well bores. those projects do not require tailing. >> hour welding techniques have improved. our steel has improved. the technology has really moved. 30-40 years ago -- i do not understand unless there is another agenda here. i think the technology is fine,

it is the political side where we are hung up right now. quick representative, can i follow up? >> my time has expired. >> at this time, i recognize the full committee ranking member, mr. waxman. >> for those who may be viewing this hearing, i think they would be as struck as i am that the only way republicans can deal with the fact that some people have questions about the pipeline is that it is a conspiracy, it is a hidden agenda, it is all politics. one of the republicans who asked questions said "who will prevent obama choose? they want to make this a political issue. the question of the decision to go ahead with this pipeline is

serious. we need to fully understand the applications of approving energy and for structure that will last for decades. i would not make light of it because the republicans want to use this hearing for their own political purposes. i think it is appropriate for the president of the united states to review this matter. a ticket is a. for the state of nebraska to reduce this issue. -- i think it is appropriate for the state of nebraska to review this issue. they do not really want to know the truth, they just want the pipeline. my friend who just asked questions on the republican side talked about how this is a hidden agenda because it is perfectly safe. we already have one keystone pipeline. it is certainly a lot later in type than the alaskan pipeline.

its last year of operation showed that there were one doesn't spills. so many spills that it was shut down temporarily. let me go to the question that bothers me the most -- what the impact will be of this pipeline if we go forward on the climate problem? republicans do not even believe in such a thing and deny the science. when they hear scientist talk about it, they think it is a hidden agenda. they cannot take another point of view seriously because they are so convinced they are right all the time. the decision is an important one. ms. kleeb, you and your neighbors and been fighting for at the environmental impact.

told this whole thing should go for. >> they are definitely a step in the right direction. the only reason we have these bills is because citizens and landowners rakehell for two solid years to make -- raised hell for two solid years. we still do not have a a study on part sand. we would hope represented perry -- we need to make sure it is safe. >> his position was that the original pipeline route was fine. he was for this project. he thinks it is important. jobs, jobs, jobs. this is a lot different from the alaskan pipeline. the alaskan pipeline was taking oil. this is a different kind of a pipeline because it is going to take the dirtiest source of oil available and drive at eight

significant increase in carbon pollution. what was your concern about the original route? i guess the original route is not going to happen now. that is not because of transcanada, but because of nebraska? >> it would cut right to the sand hills. we have no oil pipeline that crosses -- that crosses the sand hills currently. >> the sand hills is where the offer is? >> the sand hills does not have a relationship with it. it lays below the entire state of nebraska and provides water for the backbone of our state country economy. the detection system of transcanada's for pipeline we know is not a very good one. a landowner in north dakota -- their sensors did not work in that scenario. >> we have estimates based on a long period of time.

the job estimates, assuming this thing will operate for 100 years -- we will be locking in or carbon pollution for 100 years. we cannot afford to keep building dirty energy efforts structure that is going to last decades. the international energy agency said in five years we would have to make a significant move towards clean energy to avoid an 11 degree increase in global temperature. i did not know if that is democratic or republican, but i think it is a legitimate concern that should not be dismissed by republicans because they want to wonder why it -- whether obama is trying to satisfy one interest group. i think this is an issue that is worthy of our serious consideration by all the appropriate agencies. i yield back my time. >> thank you, mr. waxman.

mrs. kleeb, this committee passed a pipeline safety bill and the request for a study was part of that. i voted for that. mr. pourbaix, you are the representative from transcanada pipelines. the company build pipelines, right? >> yes. >> if a pipeline was not built, would oil sands from alberta still come into the united states to be refined and, if so, how would it be transported? >> there is some capacity left on existing pipelines that cross the border. those pipelines can get probably a few hundred thousand barrels of a criminal oil into the chicago area. the problem is there are no

pipelines that are in place that can take that oil from chicago to where it is needed, which is the gulf coast. the answer is more pipeline capacity is needed. >> is that the safer mode of transportation as opposed to -- i have heard of real? >> it is interesting. a lot of people have mentioned the formation in north dakota and montana. it is rapidly growing in production. it is anticipated to be 800,000 barrel per day in eight years. right now there are no pipeline options. all that extra metal production is being moved by truck or rail car. as you heard some of the other gentleman speak about, both of those, not only of a much more costly, they are several orders of magnitude more risky in terms of risk to the environment and human life. >> in regard to risk, is the

rest of the keystone pipeline -- risk of the keystone pipeline -- has that been studied? embar metal impact studies? >> in august of this year, the state department completed close to 40 months environmental impact review. in the conclusions of that study, it was the most comprehensive study of any oil pipeline in the history of the united states. it came to the conclusion that this pipeline would be the safest crude-oil pipeline built and operated in the united states. >> the route was dictated from the environmental study that was done? >> yes. >> your ability to move would probably be restrained from the fact that that was deemed the safest environmental route? >> the largest challenge we had in nebraska. until the state department came

out with their most recent delay, they had come to the conclusion that they preferred the route with the least environmental impact. christ that was why it was important that the state department be part of that effort to move that off the sand hills. what is the total investment into the keystone pipeline? >> including the operating -- >> let's just deal with parts, steel, and construction costs. >> we, right now, are $2 billion into this project read by the end of next year, we will be close to $3 billion. the total project cost will be approximately $7 billion. >> out of the $7 billion, how much of that will be

construction job related? >> $4.50 billion-$5 billion. in that range. >> going towards worker salaries? >> yes. >> mr. booker, have you estimated how many man-hours your union would dedicate to this pipeline? >> rough estimates were over 3 million man at -- man hours compared to other projects. >> i am going to interrupt. i only have a 37 seconds left. do you have an estimate of how many man hours your union would supply? >> we have been privy to contractor estimates of over 3 million. >> you mentioned that earlier. >> and possibly 2.5 million-3 million man hours. >> mr. burton? >> can you hear me? "yes.

>> probably a little bit on the low side. i did some quick math and we are around 64,000. probably the lowest trade. >> thank you. mr. ringo, i support the research and development. at the university of nebraska act -- i helped them get some grants to do research. i hope you were very successful in your operation. i actually have a bill to allow biofuels. under current law, the money can only go to gas and oil pipelines. how would you fill about a bill but would allow pipelines built to carry biofuels like those made from algae? >> i take it is important, but we first have to give consideration to whether there will be out adverse impact of building any type of pipeline.

>> fair answer. at this time, i think it is mr. engel, the gentleman from new york is recognized for five minutes. >> he was here first. >> i am sorry. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am would really like to encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to organize a bipartisan hearings on jobs related to the fastest- growing energy sector and that is clean energy and renewable spree clean energy is creating good jobs all across -- and renewable. clean energy is creating good jobs all across america and is most often not accompanied by the harmful impact to the help in our communities, environmental impact to the water that we drink and rely

upon. i think americans are crying out for jobs tied to this growing clean energy sector. in fact, the international energy agency recently reported and confirmed what we are all feeling and what we know. the fastest-growing sector is clean energy. the clean energy sector is providing one fifth of all electricity globally. one-fifth of all electricity and it is growing. this is where the emphasis in national policy making should be placed now. think about the divergent views on the impact of this community. when you talk about clean energy, it is something that brings us all together. it brings jobs to communities that need those jobs, provides a great shot in the arm for utility companies and others,

but it safeguards community health. in one of the reasons it is important for the keystone pipeline to continue to undergo review is that there are a lot of unanswered questions and there are a lot of serious concerns that have been raised. carbon pollution, clean water impact, and safety concerns. right now we know that extracting tar sands and upgrading it to synthetic crude oil produces roughly three times greater greenhouse gas emissions and carbon pollution. can we do something about that? do we need to put all of our emphasis on an energy source that is going to aggravate the carbon pollution problem facing our country and the world? water quality -- the testimony we are hearing today makes me very concerned about the clean water we rely on.

the safety concerns are reading a lot of red flags mainly because of the risks -- are really raising a lot of red flags mainly because of the risks. a spill outside chicago of to under 50,000 gallons -- 250,000 gallons. on may 7, the keystone pipelines spilled 21,000 gallons of crude in north dakota. that was the 11th and most significant spill. there are a lot of concerns that, i think, require the administration to continue an all-out review of the impact. on safety, of course one of the major concerns is the transporting -- the transport through the middle of the united states. many are concerned that the

substance is more corrosive than conventional oil and may pose a greater threat to pipeline deterioration. with the head of the federal pipeline safety agency testified before this committee, she said the agency had not studied whether it this tar sands oil posed a threat to the pipeline. another question is whether this oil is difficult to clean up after a blowout. last year there is a major parts and oil blowout in the kalamazoo river in michigan. i understand the heavy oil sank to the bottom of the river and may have made it more difficult to clean up. mrs. kleeb, you have raised issues of safety. can you discuss the safety concerns you have heard the communities in nebraska about the tar sand all and how they relate to the proposed route?

>> i am born in florida so i appreciate you being on this committee. our land owners heart -- seriously have a lot of concerns about organic certification. there organic certification will go away as soon as there is a tar sand a spell on their land. that simply does not go with organic certification. i have met families that have been affected by the kalamazoo cars and a spill. they are facing minor headaches and bloody noses. people are having seizures and are seriously injured from the spell that happened in michigan. 150 families were displaced from their homes because of the oil spill. these are valid concerns. i think if the tar sands energy -- industry and transcanada are confident in their product, they will not mind additional scrutiny and additional studies

that we need to do in the united states. two assumptions are being made. one, part sense are safe. two, this oil will be used are united states consumption. those assumptions are not backed up by fax. to that is what we are asking for. land owners, renters, mothers -- we are all asking for facts. >> the gentle lady's time is one minute over. thank you. mr. burgess? five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am not to do justice to your name, but mr. -- >> pourbaix. >> what is the capacity of the pipeline in question to deliver oil -- capacity in barrels per day? >> around 830,000 barrels per day. >> that is a fairly substantial

amount. how does that compare with other delivery systems? other pipelines? >> it is not different from other large-scale oil pipelines in the u.s. there are lots of pipelines in that range. >> for comparison, what does the alaskan pipeline delivered? >> i am try to think -- the alaskan pipeline is 42 inches. it is significantly over 1 million barrels per day. >> this is a significant contribution to america's energy needs. >> absolutely. >> mr. ringo, it is fascinating to hear your testimony. i am certainly interested in what can be done with using algae as a source for petroleum stock. where is your plant currently? >> we have plants -- we have opened plants in calhoun,

georgia. we are about to open a plant in augusta, georgia. we have plans on the drawing board to open a plant in michigan, california, and i am in talks with your home state of texas. >> give us an idea of how scalable is this production. how many barrels a day can be delivered in one of your plants that is up and running and mature? >> it is scalable based on demand. our process, without giving away our secrets -- the scalable now we can increase our production based on demand and we have the extraction process in place where we can extract the oil and deliver as a biofuel come up the stock, or for the pharmaceutical industry. >> do you see a point where one of these plants could produce 100,000 barrels a day? >> absolutely. >> how does it go from there to

where you need it used? >> normally you can build the plants on site. were you have a buy note -- biofuel plants, you can build an algae and facility at the plant. you also can move it by a pipeline or truck, but you definitely have to do the studies to make sure that in any product that there is not going to be an adverse impact on communities and on people and the environment in transfer of the product. >> ok. your company is bard holdings? is that a publicly traded company? >> not yet. >> the ability to see the pineapple's is not possible? >> not as of yet, but soon. >> where does your financial backing come from? >> not from the government. it is privately finance. >> it is interesting to hear the

comments about we should have some hearings on clean energy. we are having a lot of hearings on solar energy. not good news, necessarily, from the solar energy folks. i am quest to hear you are doing this on your own. you have people who put their own money at risk and they believe on the marketability of this product? that is the american story. that is the american way. i am but to see that is happening. mr. barnett, you talked about the transporting the fuel is overland if you do not have a pipeline. did i cast a part of your testimony correctly? >> i think that was mr. soth. >> but i did understand that correctly. you testified that there is an inherent risk to overland transport of petroleum products. >> that is right. the environmental review for keystone xl suggest that

fatality is 87 times more likely with tanker trucks as compared to pipeline. i believe it was 37 times more likely to cause a fire and or explosion that a pipeline. >> my congressional districts it's in north texas -- interstate 35 runs right to the heart of my district -- about three years ago we had a tanker truck that jackknife and hit a concrete wall -- concrete wall in the middle of the freeway. there were significant loss of life. impressive in that there were so many people that were suddenly and mobile once they got into that -- and mobile -- immobile. once they got into that mess, but could not get out. your upper of rush hour. this one went home for a long time. i could see an upside to get this off our freeway. i am glad you share that with us

today. thank you, mr. chairman. i will yield back. >> at this time, another gentleman from texas, mr. green. >> i have a number of questions and i know i will run out of time, but my first one, i want to ask mr. barnett -- i know there is testimony that there is project labor agreements of the pipeline. does that cover the whole part of the pipeline where it ends from the district i represent on up into canada? >> the project labor agreements covers approximately 90% of the work. there is a part that is not written into the private labor agreement. we are hoping to get that written in which transcanada. >> i hope that will be dealt with because if we have a project labor agreement of north, i would walk my folks to be covered by it. >> exactly.

we need to sell at all the way through. >> i agree. >> mr. ringo, i appreciate your being here. i appreciate your work in the petrochemical industry. i used to have steel plants, but now they are all refinery workers and chemical plant workers. i know you have been on the board of the national wildlife federation and i appreciate what you are doing because i know some companies in houston are doing some investment in algae in louisiana and other locations. that may be something we can do many years from now. we upper testimony today from a number of folks about the safety issue. right now, like north dakota does, they have to shut down all the crude oil they produced in north dakota because there is no pipeline. has there been national wildlife

federation -- have they done anything comparing safety on trucking oil out as compared to a pipelines? we've heard they are 87 times more likely to have an accident if the truck it out. i do not know what it is for real cars, but everything i have learned is that it is so much safety to be in -- safer to be in the pipelines. do you know if the wildlife federation -- this is not the first time we have gone over sensitive -- >> during my time as leaders of these organizations, our primary focus was to consider other alternative energy solutions that a tank truck or a pipeline was not an issue. when you are talking about extracting oil from algae, when you talk about by local products, when you talk about electric cars and energy efficient vehicles, you do not face the possibilities of environmental impact --

>> i agree. i also understand -- i was hopeful because -- i was hopeful for the gm and chevy volt. every source of energy is. to have a problem. -- every source of energy is going to have a problem. you do not disagree with the testimony that sending it by truck or rail is more dangerous than pipeline? >> i do agree that there are challenges. >> i only have a man and a half. i do not know if you get a second round because we keep losing members. mr. pourbaix, my friends in

louisiana are used to your name. i was disappointed in the decision by the administration, particularly because i represent those refineries. i know there are some contracts signed on 2014 deliveries. of those contracts enough to make it be flexible that if we delay it like the president said until 2013 -- i do not see how you could ever deliver those contracts in 2014. >> obviously our shippers who were particularly those refiners in your district, the reason they signed the contract is because their traditional services -- their traditional sources of crude -- their contracts are expiring. that is their primary reason why they signed up with transcanada. we have spoken to all of our shippers. it is fair to say they were deeply disappointed by the

decision to delay. >> you cannot make those contracts in 200014? >> we are working with them in order to have them stay with us. >> mr. chairman, i know i am out of time, but my refineries require at -- require 1 billion barrels of oil -- gallons of oil today. some are buying it on the open market from the mississippi river down to corpus christi, texas. we need that pipeline. thank you, mr. chairman. >> now, the gentleman from new york, mr. abel is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am probably one of the few members of this subcommittee that is in the middle on this. i have been listening to the testimony. on the one hand, the soy concerned about the environmental impact. piping mr. waxman made an

excellent -- i think mr. waxman made an excellent. and we need to be concerned about that. on the other hand, we cannot say no to everything. i come up for one, opposed alaska because i thought it was -- drilling in alaska because i thought it was the wrong thing to do, but we cannot keep saying no to everything and complain gasoline is $4 a gallon and that we are beholden to the saudi royal family and hugo chavez. we need a balance. i was disappointed in the administration's pushing back of this deadline because i think it is time to make a move one way or the other. we all know what the issues are. we can make a decision. i think be laying it does not -- delaying it does not benefit anybody. i am for renewals. i think it is important to have

clean and sustainable energy, but i frankly do not think we can move from step 1 two-step 10 overnight. i do not think it is a matter of moving to sustainable energy, clean energy, and turning off hydrocarbons at the same time. the rest to be a transition. it is one of the reasons i have fought for legislation to have a renewable fuel standards for all cars that are made in america.

v$' y

. .

>> in relation to the information, we know there were two. you point out that those report attracted limited coverage. >> that goes back to my point about the media controlling the debate. the decided this was of no interest. failure of politics the it was worth spending.

there were real problems. has only come to light now. that document has been there for years. hacking, 20019. >> i think this is important. newspapers who have been named in this report, several have said they never published on illegally in obtained information. number 1 and of private sectors trading private information. if he can state that confidently, he should be able to answer to every transaction as to what was paid, what the

private detectives did and which stories it led to any newspaper. if he cannot do they, he cannot substantiate it. >> phone hacking 21099, it may be possible to take the evidence you have given in relation, since he largely concerned a. -- confirmed it. can you tell us, you were making a short to a film for the bbc and you interviewed him. do you remember when that was? >> i could easily check. a few months ago. >> use a some of the remarks were not broadcast on the advice of bbc's lawyers.

>> he named names. >> you say you have other meetings with him. on tv from time to time. >> everything you say has been substantiated by him. interesting he said it was still going on. >> can i ask you about 21100? clear about is your

evidence in relation to him. you're simply reporting. >> i'm reporting what has been reported. and say there was no evidence of her phone being hacked, -- interject that publication of my evidence, she got in touch with me and said she had been shown evidence of being hacked. she would be happy to write to about that if it were helpful. >> just so we're understand, and did she give a time and respect to which she was told her from had been hacked? >> she had been shown and pages.

about leaking information and the movements. what we have found is that with particular, she was turning up in places and the press was finding out about it. i accused caro of tipping off newspapers about where she was up to. i have apologized because i realized i was wrong. that visiting was in the notes. 2003 as well. to say where she announced. said if he wanted to

hear, she would write. >> the information she obtained in relation to the note from the police. as far as you're aware, this is related to the news of the world. it did not extend widely. >> she has been shot on the as they relate to her. -- male had the most stories stories about them. somebody was pumping out stories the whole time. i do not know. i have no evidence of them packing her phone or of anybody else beyond where she told me. >> i am sure the newspapers, if

we're talking about the to the extent to which they relate to her, and the inference that we're talking about, phone hacking be instigated by the news of the world, this is not in evidence which incriminates the mail. >> i can tell you where she said to me. during various periods at the time, we were concerned about about them were getting out to parts of the media. i have no idea how they were getting out. they had nothing to do with carol. she has sued the daily mail. say that

the daily mail had not done anything, i am not prepared to say that. i have no evidence of them hacking telephones. which occasion? >> it was a case where i think it was libeled. over something they had said about jews trying to sell a book or something. >> would it be fair to summarize your evidence, you have no evidence and the -- indicating involved by way of observation. you are not prepared to say there were not involved. >> correct. to the point made earlier. we have only known about stories in news of the world. i am not suggesting i know of any evidence that got into

whether newspapers. that. along the way, we have been told that news international and see where all the evidence leads. proving a negative is difficult. >> i agree. just but to all of us involved government, a lot of stuff got out. some of it because people within government were putting it out there. that does happen. equally, there were situations where you would scratch your head thinking how the hell did that get out? now, i have

. as i can take that issue. >> she would be happy to elaborate if you want her to. >> i would like to ask you about other activities. 21101. through. all, your own experience of that. -- >> is people. the night and there are people going bins. to cold. his was published in the, i was the sunday times.

>> your relation to the late similar memos appeared in other papers. were you aware of that? >> philip was a wonderful human being. he was not careful with where he left his? -- bags. it was non some were taken from his bins. by the sunday times. how was it non? thought it was an accepted fact. >> the phenomenon of people garbage, in this particular case it is disputed that his memos departed from his

bin. i was wondering what the link these memos with the sunday times. >> i thought there was accepted. i do not know. happy to except. but he willingham these bins. >> for about personal experience of blagging? >> it is small scale. i have had phone calls that people have tried to get into my account. once or twice. nothing that has led anywhere.

i'm going to ask you about of from private information. about harassment when you're with children? and the examples of that. >> i am not going to put myself bracket as these a- who get harassed 24 hours a day. i have had experience of being out with my daughter when she was about nine and being swarmed by a group of photographers who said she would not be in the picture. how'd she now that?

i put that in there because i knew you asked me from my experience. complaining about that. >> the targeting of relatives. >> i do complain about this. you develop a thick skin. a thick skin. i have reached the point where i do not care what the papers say about me. i have never sued a newspaper. i can always answer back. get you through your family. when i read it. not, call at the time. it is the only time i managed to get an instant apology from the daily mail when they wrote about

the story of my father's death. my father was alive of the time. the one time when he admitted he did not have a leg to stand on. i'm glad to say we got money and manage to to build a new school gates that is still being used children albeit not a dead. . it is interesting the background to that. that somebody was not much better to do decided to write a book about me. mail thought they were to serialize it. the express said there were

going to do there. paul was miffed at this. he put together a team of people pretend to write a book which it put together in a few days. it was a book which did not exist which on day one talked about an impact on my father's death. it does matter but you are -- your parents and your brothers, this is not their world. machen have a profound impact. clear that people should not be targeted because of their family connection. her father's sex life deemed to be newsworthy.

why was he famous? he is the father of somebody famous. i pointed to an example about a several thousand. to the labor party. son works for the labor party because he wants to do it any applied for a job. they do a story about nepotism suggesting he got the job because animated during nation. did i do anything? you move on. i make the point that for a lot of people, the current government are not suffering to extent but they will unless the press changes. there will come a point where they do the same to them.

>> i've some questions in relation to the daily mail. it is headlined nepotism. campbell's son is given a job with labor. labor has been accused of nepotism after handing a job to of alistair campbell. what the mp was saying. it of cronyism. this is the sort of map did --

nepotism we have come to expect. is there a difficulty in reporting on what a political opponent of yours is saying? -- you well they made the issue. they have found someone to say what they wanted them to say. that is part of what newspapers do. i am merely making the point they would know that story would annoy me more than most of the that they write about me whenever they do. this stuff about me i could not give a damn. then no bringing your family into the story, we talked about philip a moment ago. daughter applied to get

day candidature, the press went in to kill mode. due either -- a lot of people are never going to put their head above the parapet again. >> in relation to this piece and the labor spokesman denied any suggestion of nepotism and insisted your son was appointed on merit. given that job because he was the best candidate. the idea was wrong about the father of's claim.

and, at 21103. make a large number of points. can we try to summarize them in words? what would be the bullet points which have said that your position? >> that it has failed. it is a is being of the press for the press. it has had a succession of chairman and one chairwoman who have been appointed as political operating in the interest of the press rather than the public interest.

there are other failings which . feel investigating things. have a specific complaint to is affected by a story. generally i referred to is, phobia. -- islamaphobia. you should do something? they said somebody has to complain. individual muslim has to say paper is affecting me as an individual. that task to change. this a makeup has for that -- from the start.

that lead to regulation. by the press. is a good thing. it means public money is not being spent on this. it makes it a vested interest. these people who have senior -- it operated like a gentleman's club. let's see how we can keep that quiet. committee, they may not be sitting in judgment but they have powers in the organization. the body that replaces them, be no media representatives involved at all. >> a few points before i ask you to address the future, one point relates to what you said in the

there were of the death of a singer. the out was that it was rejected. me read paragraph 12 of the discrimination, the press must avoid race, color, sexual orientation or to any disability. they have to make judgments. i know what judgment i would have made. >> that does not mean that the since they investigate the complaint and found there was not a breach

of the code. a point that can be argued. put the press interest ahead of the other people's interest. that is not to say they do not do some good work, mediation, and we always found them helpful the prime minister's children. on the bigger questions, i think they have failed. >> sander stand your evidence on the bigger question put on this micro issue, without seeing -- we could examine it. >> i agree.

i can give you my opinion. they made a judgment and i accept that. i sort of felt this one, if you look at the words of that paragraph, it is an open and shut case. i could give you other examples of what has been accepted which did not lead to ruling in the complainant's favor. >> you were constantly told that to the three people who counted on them were the chairman, the people you refer to, can you tell us about them? the chairman would make no bones about the fact there were trying to keep us happy. they were trying to keep the media barons happy.

i was always conscious of the fact that these were important people. i am not suggesting they sat in cases but in terms of its direction and strategy, these were players. >> there are also telling you they also had to keep consumers happy. >> i think a lot of the time, that was where the bulk of what went on was. at the national level, it was a much more of these other issues. >> in your point and at the body was dedicated to keeping people happy, that may fail in achieving the right objective between complex issues. >> that is why i would

recommend any replacement body has to be set up by parliament. there should be no political interest on it. >> i am going to come to that in a moment. can i ask you about a paragraph at the bottom of the page. it reads we resorted to -- i think you have been shown some questions. these came to you over the weekend. >> in some cases they do it -- did rule in favor of the children. there were perfectly good. >> so we can be precise, the pronoun we in this sentence we,